EPL Talk » UEFA

Who Do You Want To See In The Champions League Final?

The Gaffer — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:37:40 +0000

After yesterday’s final games in the Champions League round of 16, we now know which teams will be in the hat tomorrow morning to decide who will play who in the quarter-finals. But before tomorrow’s draw, I thought it’d be fun to fantasize a little and think about which two teams would be the dream Champions League Final this year.

The eight teams who have qualified for the quarter-finals are:

Arsenal
Bayern Munich
Barcelona
Bordeaux
CSKA Moscow
Inter Milan
Lyon
Manchester United

For me, a dream final would be Manchester United against Inter Milan. Consider all of the storylines. It would be Ferguson against Mourinho. Premier League against Serie A. Wesley Sneijder against Michael Carrick. Italy against England (which could easily end up being a semi-final or final or quarter-final between the two countries in this summer’s World Cup). And the list goes on and on.

It would also be a great tactical and enjoyable game to watch, both defensively and offensively.

What about you? What would be your dream Champions League Final?

Breaking News: Ireland Ask FIFA To Let Them Go To South Africa

Paul Bestall — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:17:16 +0000

Well, you can’t blame them for trying, two weeks after that hand ball incident and FIFA and UEFA being as patronising as possible, the Football Association of Ireland have asked to be included in the World Cup draw on Friday as a 33rd team.I’ve just had the misfortune of sitting through a Sepp Blatter press conference, which saw a bunch of smug and arrogant bureaucrats laugh at Ireland’s suggestions. Quite what was so funny about it and Blatter’s excuse that Costa Rica would also want to go simply makes them look out of touch from reality.

He then decided to mention that Henry’s family had received death threats. Quite what that had to do with Irelands request wasn’t clear, but the message was. Ireland haven’t a prayer against this cartel. I’m struggling to understand what’s so funny about FIFA’s cowardice in dealing with this situation in an adult manner. An organisation that is run by autocratic and very undemocratic voting procedures seems adamant to cling to the past as long as it possibly can. By continually refusing to look at the bigger picture here, which has seen FIFA’s standing fall even lower than most people thought possible, they are beginning to resemble dinosaurs.

This continual defence of “We can’t introduce video technology” is fast losing any semblance of reality. Football is now the only major sport which will not allow video replays to decide incidents in play. Cricket, NFL, Rugby League and Rugby Union all now use the technology available to them to assist in supporting the match officials. How many mistakes must be brushed under as “human error” before Blatter and his cronies get the message. The match officials need help and only video technology can do it to the level required.

The old argument about the game being able to be played from top to bottom of the football tree with the same set up up is beyond pointless now. Top level football bares absolutely no comparison with Sunday morning football anymore. The balls, boots, pitches, officials, diets, goalkeepers gloves even the half time refueling are all miles apart now. When such matters as World Cup qualification are on the line, especially when accusations of bias abound, video technology allows the officials postion to be strengthened not weakened.

The other argument of slowing the game down is also pointless. Ireland’s protestations over Henry’s cheating took over 3 minutes to settle down. Are you telling me it would take 3 minutes for the replay to prove Henry handled it twice? Of course it wouldn’t. People say that it’s decisions like this that make the game what it is today and we need things to talk about. What an idiotic argument, we live in the 21st century, if anything it’s incidents like the Henry incident that can do untold damage to the game. It makes fans like me think whats the point when blatant cheating can go unpunished.

By refusing to even consider the possibility of bringing football into the 1980’s never mind the 21st century, Sepp Blatter and his self protecting friends are pouring scorn on the beautiful game. The dodgy European seedings, constant slating of English sides, refusal to accept video technology and the obvious fact that South Africa will be given the easiest group in Friday’s World Cup seedings show that FIFA is only interested in paying lip service to fair play and its place in the modern world. The reality is that FIFA will always protect its favourite countries over teams such as Ireland, Costa Rica and Turkey, surrounding itself with useless bureaucrats who only care about themselves and stuff the fans and football.

Transfer Ban for United?

Adam Mikhail — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:41:06 +0000

It seems like this is all coming out of nowhere. Any fan of the game knows that the “tapping-up” allegations have always been prominent but rarely has it been so harshly punished. From United’s perspective, they were accused of tapping up Dimitar Berbatov and Wayne Rooney in the recent past and accused Real Madrid of tapping-up Ronaldo(the accusing needed not be done, Ronaldo was caught on camera). Now, we have the tapping up issue of Paul Pogba.

This morning, FIFA announced the two-year transfer ban of Chelsea Football Club for acquiring the signature of Gael Kakuta, who had signed a non-solicitation agreement with French club Lens. This evening, The Times are reporting that a similar case has been filed against United for the signing of Le Havre youngster Paul Pogba and that the situation is not yet resolved, according the club’s managing director.

In a matter of days, we’ve heard about three issues that could potentially harm English teams. First, Michel Platini singled out Manchester City’s spending and claimed they would not be allowed to participate in Europe if they could not balance the books – all the while not mentioning the actions of Real Madrid. Now there are two more issues with top English clubs that could see a serious downsizing of the English club dominance – assuming the sanctions are carried out.

UEFA, You’ve Lost Your Touch

Adam Mikhail — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:17:58 +0000

“Giggs looking to pick out Rooney… who’s got there, is that a penalty kick?! What does Mike Dean say?! He says penalty!”

This whole routine is getting a little old, isn’t it? Screw diamonds, refereeing mistakes are forever. It’s like the referees all convene and decide whose turn it is to make mistake and forbid us from ever forgetting how truly inadequate they are. Just when we’re about to move on from one refereeing saga, the Eduardo dive, Wayne Rooney provides the perfect half-dive(he was already going down, but there was contact) to remind us of the skinny men(excluding Howard Webb) in black. Pretty good timing though, being international week and all. Thanks, Wayne.

It’s really unfair to demonize the referees without looking first at those who bestowed such an enviable task upon them – the FA, FIFA, and UEFA. Instead of giving referees a requisite arsenal for calling a fair and accurate match, they provide them with an extreme protectionism that only vilifies them more. What I mean by this is similar to what Arsene Wenger meant when he labeled Eduardo’s ban a “disgrace.” Although I believe Wenger worsened his case with some of his comments, particularly trying to defend Eduardo with claims of contact being made or mentions of his injury, he makes one very good point. UEFA retrospectively overruled a decision the referee had dealt with on the pitch, something that has always been forbidden by the FA and UEFA. We are constantly reminded: if the referee did not take action, the governing body cannot take action. The governing bodies do this to protect the referees and credit them with the final word. This was cited as the reason Jose Bosingwa was not banned for clear red-card kick on Benayoun and why Michael Ballack was not punished after the Barcelona match, just to name two examples. UEFA seem so eager to protect the decisions made by the referee that they blindly accept reversible mistakes. With the Eduardo ban, UEFA prove themselves to be hypocrites.

In last year’s Champions League semi-final between Arsenal and Manchester United, Darren Fletcher brilliantly stuck in a toe to legally win the ball from Cesc Fabregas, and he was handed a red-card. The only way to get the unjust red-card overturned, UEFA said, is if the referee mistook Fletcher for another person – in which case a different person would be banned for a legal challenge. As they always do, UEFA came to the rescue of the referee and punished the player – who actually plays the sport – with a Champions League Final suspension. In fact, Eduardo was not banned for simulation, he was banned for “deceiving the referee.” If they charge him for simulation, they accept that the referee made a mistake, but when they charge him for “deceiving the referee,” they make the referee the victim. In his own words Michel Platini removes blame of the referee,

“However, on Wednesday he showed disrespect to the game by his actions in winning a penalty against Celtic.”

The way he phrases this, you’d think Eduardo was the referee and awarded himself the penalty.

This is where I may surprise you. I wanted Eduardo to get banned for cheating, plain and simple. Bans for diving needed to start sometime and now is perfectly suitable. A friend of mine had a perfect analogy, “Cavemen used to kill each other for sport, does that mean we should never have made a law against murder?” However, in order for UEFA to really make a difference, they’re going to have to change a lot and to be honest, they probably won’t.

First, the next time Ronaldo, Messi or Kaka clearly dives in the Champions League, they should be banned for two matches. If they want to show they’re serious, they can make an example of a superstar and show football what nobody believes, that UEFA is unbiased. Second, the players need to be protected, not the referees. Why punish a player or a team to protect the least profitable and marketable aspect of the game, the referees? All decisions should be available for overruling if they are clearly incorrect. Lastly, give referees the technologies that any supporter of football has from his living room. The problem is that the governing bodies are run by older people whose playing days didn’t know anything of instant replay. The game has changed and technology has changed but sadly, they have not. This leads me to believe that instant replay and goal-line technology are inevitable, seeing as they are supported by the majority, just not the right majority. Adding an extra referee will further the problem, not solve it. If you’re playing with a flat football, do you go and get another flat football? As Slaven Bilic famously said, “Wake up.”

UEFA to Fine Arsenal and Manchester United £5,000, Why Bother?

tyduffy — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:46:28 +0000

UEFA will fine both Arsenal and Manchester United £5,000 respectively for fan incidents during last years Champions League semifinals. An Arsenal fan hit Nemanja Vidic with a plastic bottle. A Manchester United supporter hurled a smoke bomb onto the pitch. The actions were potentially serious. The fines are not.

UEFA functions like all bureaucracies. It continues actions without a hint of rational analysis, solely because it was policy beforehand. Has no one questioned the purpose of these penalties?

The sums under discussion are trivial. Both Manchester United and Arsenal measure turnover in the hundreds of millions. Five thousand pounds neither attracts attention nor deters future behavior. It is doubtful Arsenal will now institute a plastic bottle task force.

It does not stop supporters. If you throw a projectile into the pitch, it is assumed you will be banned. The thought of the club paying a paltry fine in addition does not factor into the decision.

The fines are also not cost effective. There must be a meeting to determine whether a meeting to discuss these incidents is required. Someone has to schedule, to organize and to provide amenities for that meeting, which, with UEFA, is probably a lavish lunch. They may even fly people in for it. Someone has to contact the clubs to make statements. Once the issue is deemed punishment-worthy, another meeting must take place. The process takes months. The sum cost exceeds the amount returned in fines.

UEFA penalizing Arsenal and Manchester United accomplishes only one thing. It re-publicizes unsavory events long-forgotten and ultimately insignificant.

Rationales are non-existent. The fines are useless. UEFA should give meaningful punishments, or none at all.

Do We Really Need A New Football?

Ethan Armstrong — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:00:03 +0000

Football’s magnificence lies in it simplicity. The rules, the tactics, the culture have adopted their own complexities over the years, but boots, nets, linesmen, banners and songs all become luxuries when we acknowledge the lovers of the game would play in the mud in bare feet if they had to. Pick two kids anywhere on the planet, give ‘em a football and kick ‘em out of the house for a few hours and those tykes’ll make a game of it. Rocks and sticks become goal posts. Any patch of open space makes a pitch and a round ball is all you need. That’s why it’s the world’s best loved sport.

So it baffles me when a football governing body introduces a “new ball” as UEFA did for the champions league final. Frivolous new technology in a sport of beautiful simplicity. Okay, UEFA: what have we got here?

The Adidas Finale Rome utilizes PSC-Texture™ which entails a series of bumps on the surface of the ball which is supposed to create a better grip for the players’ boots, thus making it easier to play with in inclement weather conditions.

Right.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to progress. I just hate when it interferes with the purity of the game.

If you can make goal-line technology work: fine. Put a sensor in the ball so we know when it crosses the line, etc.. If the change doesn’t affect the movement of the ball, it’s no problem. If it helps us clarify dubious goals and such without stopping the match for video replay, that’s a reasonable technological innovation. But if the weight of the sensor, say, somehow stunts the speed of the ball as it moves across the pitch or if it drastically alters its trajectory from a free-kick or corner, then I have a problem with it.

Watching the players try and get their feet around the Rome Finale ball was painful at times. The movement from freekicks and corners was markedly different, and the ball’s track across the pitch seemed stuttered and inconsistent. The technology interfered with play. Anyone could see it.

From kick-off, the difference was blatant . Barca gave up a quick free throw in dangerous territory because what should have been a simple pass from Valdes missed its man and went out to touch. Almost the same thing happened to United after Eto’o scored. A routine pass to van der Sar went well wide and Barca earned a corner kick.

As with the ball used in the 2006 World Cup, change has altered the path of the ball and forces the players to change how they play. In 2006, fewer seams altered the spin of the lighter ‘Teamgiest‘ ball and gave it an unpredictable trajectory. Keepers had their hands full (or not) keeping tabs on where the ball was going.

At least FIFA used the Teamgeist for the entire World Cup, though. UEFA waited until the Champions League final to introduce the Finale Rome. Yes, the name of the ball presaged that move. But perhaps we could have been using an Adidas Groupstage Rome with the same technology at the start of the competition so the players could get used to it.

While any of the United and Barca players who represented their country in last summer’s Euro have already been exposed to PSC-Texture™ in the form of the ‘EUROPASS‘ ball, the thing still seemed an alien concept on the day as players were clearly not used to the ball’s movement.

But the issue ultimately goes back to the concept of simplicity.

We don’t need this ball.

Playing in bad weather is as important a tradition for football as anything. And its the same soaked pitch for both sides. Until Ronaldo or Messi develops webbed feet and gills, it’s not as if one has advantage over the other. The ball’s goosebumps, dimples, pimples, whatever they are: not needed. “They are scientifically proved to allow better control in all weather conditions.” Yeah? Well, they invoked poor control on a sunny day at Wembley.

It didn’t change the outcome, as both sides had to struggle with the thing equally. But it forced them to change how they played and adjust to a new ball with little preparation.

Embrace simplicity, UEFA. The ball is round. You kick it. You can even do this without a high-tech nuclear powered boot designed by NASA. I promise.

We don’t need more whistles and bells on our football. I say, don’t &%#!@ with perfection™.

UEFA’s Appeal Committee Show No Common Sense

Paul Bestall — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:53:02 +0000

Why is it so hard to have a governing body with an ounce of common sense, UEFA just seem bereft of it every time it seems like they’ll do the right thing. Are your matches blighted by neo-nazi’s forming swastika shapes on the terrace? Here, have a fine of $3 and don’t do it again. Do your fans steal a visiting fans scooter, carry it into the ground, set it on fire and throw it on the pitch during a game? Never happened. English based player sent off for a foul he didn’t commit? The Red card stands!

Darren Fletcher’s red card, alongside Eric Abidals, was a travesty. The referee got it wrong, it was obviously a mistake so United must have been hoping that UEFA’s appeal’s panel would realise that the ludicrous and frankly absurd rule that you can’t appeal a red card unless it’s mistaken identity and it would see the opportunity for them to hold their hands up, say the referee got it wrong, and rescind it.

Of course they didn’t. Now I’m not buying into the conspiracy theories that are currently doing the rounds in the British press, though UEFA’s contempt for the Premiership is hard to ignore currently due Platini’s consistent anti-Premiership rhetoric, but honestly, they make you want to pull your hair out. Fletcher’s challenge was a wonderfully timed last ditch tackle that saved a goalscoring opportunity, or so he thought. Unfortunately referee Rosetti deemed it a foul and that’s the end of it.

To be blunt, it shows that the idiots in power at the top of UEFA have now entrenched so far into their bunkers that they can no longer see common sense. What is so wrong with doing the right thing? It’s the same for the Abidal sending off, an incorrect decision that all the world can see in the cold light of day but they will not budge on the matter. An incorrect decision, regardless of televisual evidence stands, cast in stone. A chance for UEFA to finally offer those who criticise the bloated, out of touch and idiotic board an opportunity to say well done UEFA, a common sense victory for football.

Yet, they once again sail off into the sunset, the winds of ignorance speeding them onward to the next calamity. How can these decisions support the referee’s who have to make these decisions, no-one is infallible, no-one is beyond making a mistake. By digging themselves into such a position, they make themselves ripe for ridicule, with the next calamitous decision just around the corner. Like holding the Champions League final at a ground with a history of violence from both the fans and the police in a country racked with hooliganism at every match.

I’ve been to the Stadio Olympico twice, both times were eye opening experiences for me as a fan. Both times left me very nervous about my well being in and around the stadium and they were for a Serie A game. Would I go there as an opposing fan? Not on your life!Hopefully, the British police will be there in large numbers to keep an eye out for rogue groups of Roma fans with their speciality of sticking a pen knife in you as you walk past them. And again, and again and so it continues.

It’s so disappointing to have an official body that won’t do the right thing whenever they seem to given a perfect opportunity time and again. It’s a real shame that Fletcher and Abidal will both miss the biggest games of their careers so far due to stubbornness beyond all reason.

Chelsea’s UEFA Conspiracy Claims Are Laughable

tyduffy — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:33:58 +0000

With their typical class, Chelsea players and staff asserted their belief, following their 1-1 agg defeat to Barcelona, that UEFA conspired against them to prevent an all-English final in the Champions League.

Players, such as Didier Drogba, displayed their sentiment by all but physically assaulting the referee as he left the pitch. Manager Guus Hiddink took a more measured tone in the subsequent press conference, but offered much the same sentiment.

“Conspiracy is a very tough word and you have to prove it,” Hiddink said. “I don’t want to go with that tough word. It was said in the build-up that it would be nice to have a repetition of last year’s final, but I can only say what I see.

“I cannot say if Uefa would not like another all-English final. What I’m sure about that, in big games like this, you need top-notch referees. Players make many mistakes, coaches makes mistakes and referees can make mistakes. But if you have seen three or four situations waved away, then it’s the worst I have seen. At this moment I’d have to think a lot if I have seen worse.”

It may have been better for UEFA business had Barcelona won, but that alone does not justify a conspiracy claim. If UEFA had conspired to fix this match, they did perhaps the worst job in the history of conspiracy.

UEFA so pressured the referee for a Barca victory at the Camp Nou that he ignored a blatant Chelsea penalty committed against Thierry Henry, booked Carles Puyol rashly causing him to miss the second and leg and sent off neither Michael Ballack nor Alex when he easily could have.

The anti-English junta flexed it’s influencing muscle even further in the second leg when Eric Abidal received a red card for being in the vicinity when Nicolas Anelka tripped over his own feet, forcing Barcelona to play with ten. Claims that UEFA was fixing the match for Chelsea are absurd.

Moreover, most of the Chelsea penalty claims in the second leg were specious.

For Alves’ foul on Malouda, the foul began outside the area and was only given at all because Malouda hurled himself to the ground against physics. Abidal’s miniscule touch on Drogba was followed by a blatant, delayed dive. Toure’s foul on Drogba, if he committed one, was outside the box. He tackled fairly in the box.

Pique’s handball, perhaps, was a penalty. But, the call was a mistake and hardly conspiracy. The referee had a shocker, but both teams had to live with him, not merely Chelsea.

Chelsea played to score one goal over two legs. They deployed 11 men in Barcelona purely to kick and stifle the opposition, forgoing an away goal. The played defensively once they went 1-0 up at Stamford Bridge, pulling off Drogba for defense, despite facing ten men.

Scoring goals and preventing the other team from scoring, not referees, decides football matches. Chelsea’s negative tactics left defeat plausible. Andres Iniesta snatched an opportunity. Conspiracy did not fell Chelsea. It was karma.

UEFA Europa League, A Second Rate Competition

Christopher Walker — Sat, 02 May 2009 13:41:51 +0000

UEFA Europa League, formerly the UEFA Cup

With four games of the Premier League campaign left, Fulham are leading the ‘race’ for seventh place and for the Cottagers it will be a rare European adventure. This would of course be via the all singing, all dancing UEFA Europa League.

This ‘new’ competition was created by reformatting and re-branding the ailing UEFA Cup. Normally to fans of most teams, seeing their beloved club in participate would be something to look forward to. But it appears that until the latter stages of this competition hardly anyone actually seems interested. My memories of the UEFA Cup in recent years seem to have followed a similar pattern. watch the final but pay little/no attention to the barely watchable early rounds that in recent years have thrown up classic encounters between European giants like Bolton Wanderers and Aris Thessaloniki.

No direspect to the teams mentioned above but I do wonder how many neutrals actually tune in to ITV4 to watch these games? Granted in the latter stages of the competition when the bigger clubs like Manchester City and Hamburger SV rip into each other we are once again interested.

The major problem with the UEFA Cup/Europa League, is that it is without doubt a second class competition. This is likely to be down to the hype that surrounds it’s bigger sibling the Champions League. I am fully aware that UEFA are in business to make money but even the Champions league appears to be losing a bit of prestige. “How so?” I hear you ask. Simple, the name of the competition is the Champions League. How many champions actually participate? The last time I checked, teams that finish second, third and fourth not champions.

It seems a bit unfair on teams from the ‘lesser leagues’ that win their domestic title and then have to go through the qualifying rounds and invariaby don’t get the chance to play at Old Trafford and the Nou Camp etc while a team from England that finishes 12 points from top gets the likes of Real Madrid and Inter Milan in their group. This being said, it would be hypocritical of me to back that statement 100 percent. After all, I’d sooner watch Liverpool vs Real Madrid than watch Llanelli take on the likes of NSI Runavik.

One of UEFA’s strategy to make the UEFA cup more exciting was to drop third placed Champions League teams into the competition. What a lovely kick in the face that is for the teams who have been in the competition from outset. I can understand that the likes AC Milan at Fratton Park last year was genuinely exciting but most of the time you would expect teams from Greece and Norway to drop into the Europa League. Again this approach is what makes it such a second class competition in the first place. I don’t believe for one minute that Europa League will ever hold the prestige that it did in it’s previous guise as the UEFA Cup in years gone by. Quite simply the standard of many of the teams isn’t good enough as the better teams have already participated in the Champions league – even if they finished fourth domestically. And in any case, managers will rather turn their focus to the Premier League and the FA Cup.

Interview: Ján Figel’ (European Commission)

Matthew Semisch — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:31:22 +0000

If you consider yourself a political junkie on top of being an EPL newshound, then we certainly have quite the interview for you today.

With FIFA’s proposed ‘6+5’ rule to place limits on the number of foreign-born players in domestic club teams rearing its ugly head in the press once again in recent weeks, we here at EPL Talk thought it best to go straight to the top to get the European Union’s official reaction for ourselves, and we’ve done just that.

Here, we feature Ján Figel’, the European Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Youth. His jurisdiction also covers sport issues, and it is for that reason why we approached him for a written interview to get his thoughts on FIFA’s controversial proposal as well as such topics as the European Court of Justice’s landmark 1995 ruling on the Jean-Marc Bosman case, who the Commissioner has had to work with on the issue of ‘6+5’ and how often, and also whether or not ‘6+5’ has been much of a ‘water-cooler’ topic of discussion within the Berlaymont building, which houses the headquarters of the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU.

First of all, Commissioner, for the benefit of any of our readers who may be new to the realm of European politics, could you please describe for us what all your job entails, especially in relation to sport?

Figel’: My main areas of responsibility are education, vocational training, culture and youth policy, but I am also the European Commissioner for sport issues. Sport is not an area in which the European Commission has any formal powers according to the EC Treaty, so your readers are probably wondering, “Why is there a European Commissioner for sport, then?” Well, the answer is that many areas of sport fall within the scope of Community law, especially when we talk about sport as an economic activity. Then, for example, the EU’s competition law and internal market rules apply to sport.

But of course, sport is not like any straightforward economic activity; it has health benefits, social aspects and educational value in addition to purely economic elements. This specific nature of sport was highlighted in the Commission’s main policy document in this area, which we call the ‘White Paper on Sport‘, published in 2007.

It was governmental and non-governmental stakeholders from the Member States that asked the European Commission to reinforce the promotion of European sport; hence the White Paper. The White Paper was the first time that all the diverse Court judgments and other relevant decisions and developments in sport were drawn together into one coherent document, to present a one-stop, comprehensive treatment of sport at the EU level.

My job consists of listening to sports organizations and stakeholders, as well as Member State authorities, to facilitate contacts between the various interested parties and head off potential problems before they germinate. I am also following up on the White Paper’s list of 53 tangible actions at EU level in sport, actions that, taken together, are known as the ‘Pierre de Coubertin Action Plan’. These actions include things like facilitating a social dialogue with sport stakeholders, to support employees and employers, for example, or coordinating EU approach to the fight against doping in sport.

Last month, the Institute for European Affairs released a report declaring that FIFA’s proposed ‘6+5’ rule does in fact comply with European Community Law and the principle of free movement of workers. What has been your reaction to the report’s findings, and does the fact that FIFA commissioned the report affect its credibility?

Figel’: It is well-established that professional football players are ‘workers’ under EU law. So, for the European Commission, the EU’s rules on the free movement of workers, and the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, clearly apply. This has been made clear by the European Court of Justice in various judgments, including the famous Bosman ruling in 1995: a system of quotas based on nationality would simply be illegal under current EU law.

My services are analyzing the report (a 200 page document) and will meet its authors and FIFA to have an exchange of views on the report’s main conclusions.

At this stage, it seems to me that the report by INEA is not adding new significant insights into this debate. The main idea behind the report is that the 6+5 rule would not infringe EU law, as it is not based on nationality, but on the eligibility to play for a national team. However, the Commission remains of the opinion that the 6 + 5 Rule, even when it is re-phrased to refer to “those eligible to play for the national team”, still ultimately implies as a result a quota-based system based on nationality, because obviously only nationals could play for the national teams.

The European Commission is the defender of EU law, and as such, cannot agree to an illegal system. So, as long as FIFA keep on proposing the 6 + 5 rule as it is currently formulated, the Commission will not be able to endorse the application of the rule within the European Union.

It’s as simple as that: the 6 + 5 rule cannot apply within the EU.

Much noise is made about the ’specificity’ of sport that I mentioned earlier. The specific nature of sport, or its ’specificity’, has also been repeatedly acknowledged by the Commission and the European Court of Justice over the years, so that European jurisprudence permits some derogations from the rigorous application of Community laws in certain cases. But the specificity of sport cannot be used to justify the ‘6 + 5′ rule: the specificity of sport cannot be used as an argument to justify a general exemption from the application of EU law, which is what the ‘6 + 5′ rule aims to do.

One should also recognize that the EU itself enjoys its ’specificity’. The EU is a unique organization, not comparable to any other experience of regional integration in the world, as the Treaty on which the EU is founded grants a series of rights and freedoms directly to EU citizens. Looked at this way, the specificity of the EU and of its rules should also be taken into account by international sports federations when setting the rules of the game.

I am frequently asked if the Commission can ever reach agreement with FIFA on this issue. For me, this question is largely beside the point: it’s ultimately a matter for the European Court of Justice to decide. If FIFA were to impose the ‘6+5′ rule in the EU, any professional football clubs or players who felt that they were treated unfairly by the rule could take the issue to the Court. And they would win.

Of course, the Commission is in dialogue with sports organizations, including FIFA, and is looking into ways of reaching agreement in ways that are compatible with EU law. That way, we can avoid lengthy and weary legal battles from developing in the European courts.

When reminded of the controversy surrounding FIFA’s (and UEFA’s, lest we forget) proposed limits on foreign players in club sides, many people think back to the ECJ’s Bosman ruling. Considering that that was well over a decade ago now, do you feel that public reaction to the ruling would be any different if it was handed down today as opposed to back then?

Figel’: I don’t think it is useful to speculate on where we’d be if there had been no Bosman case, but one thing is clear: if the equivalent of the Bosman ruling had only been handed down now, in 2009, I expect the ruling would be applauded as much now as it was then by the footballers concerned, as well as all those with a love for ‘The Beautiful Game’.

Besides, there has been much talk about the “out-of-datedness” of the Bosman ruling. The INEA report affirms that the Court would give a different ruling on the same case nowadays, considering the “negative” developments induced by the 1995 ruling. To that, I can respond that the Court not only confirmed the reasoning behind the ruling, but it also extended its effects to professional footballers belonging to countries with whom the EU has signed particular agreements as recently as in 2003 (Kolpak ruling) and 2005 (Simutenkov ruling).

Obviously ‘6+5’ has been a very contentious issue which inevitably has had people of all walks of life talking about it. Are you reminded of it very often by your colleagues at Berlaymont?

Figel’: As I said earlier, my primary areas of responsibility are in education and training, culture and youth policy. But EU initiatives in those areas tend to have a much more medium- to long-term perspective. Therefore, they do not hit the headlines all too often. That is quite different when it comes to sport, and especially football! ‘6+5′ certainly sparked many discussions in the corridors of the Commission.

Speaking hypothetically, if FIFA gets its way and ‘6+5’ is fully implemented, is there any concern within the European Community that domestic leagues in other parts of the world would gain ground in terms of quality of competition at the expense of their European counterparts?

Figel’: As I mentioned earlier, if FIFA decide to ignore our advice, and impose the 6+5 rule in the EU, I would expect the issue to land in the lap of the European Court of Justice pretty quickly. All it takes is for one professional football club or player to feel that he was treated unfairly by the rule, and he could take the matter to the Court. On the strength of existing jurisprudence, as well as the fundamental principle of the freedom of movement of workers in the EU, and the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, the outcome is, in my view, and without prejudice to the opinion of the Court, utterly predictable: the 6+5 Rule would have to be struck down within the EU.

Considering that EPL Talk focuses largely on the Barclays Premier League in England, I feel somewhat obliged to ask: Where it regards ‘6+5,’ have you heard more from higher-profile associations in countries like England, Spain and Italy – countries whose bigger club teams may feel that they would have more to lose with a rule like ‘6+5’ in place – than associations that don’t normally get as much of the spotlight?

Figel’: My contacts with the sporting world are mainly through trans-national organizations, such as UEFA, ECA (European Club Association), EPFL (the Association of European Professional Football Leagues), FIFPro (the international players’ union), FIFA and the IOC & EOC (the International and European Olympic Committees) and others. I have not so far been directly approached by the leagues of the bigger countries on the topic of 6+5.

This may be because of my dialogue with UEFA. You see, UEFA have proposed a promising alternative to the FIFA ‘6+5′ proposal: the “Home-Grown Player Rule”.As your readers may already know, this refers to the rules adopted by UEFA in 2005 for its competitions. The Home-Grown Player Rule is currently being phased in gradually. The Rule applies to the ‘A’ list of 25 players, and says that the ‘A’ list should have a minimum of eight “home-grown trained” players by the 2008-09 season. These ‘home-grown’ players would have been trained between the ages of 15 and 21 for at least three years in one training centre belonging to the club or another centre of the same national football association.

The European Commission has analyzed this proposal, and in May 2008 concluded that the Home-Grown Player Rule does not constitute any direct discrimination, and that it seems to be compatible with EU law. This distinguishes the rule from the FIFA 6 + 5 proposal. A further review of the HGP rule is scheduled for 2012, by when the rule will have been fully operational.

In doing my research for this interview, I was unable to find out which football team(s) you support, if any. Are there any teams in particular – both club and country, although the latter seems a little more obvious given your nationality – that you support, and how would ‘6+5’ affect them specifically?

Figel’: I traditionally support Slovan Bratislava in my country – Slovakia. In Europe, I like to watch some of the English, Spanish and German teams. As I hope to have made clear, the 6+5 rule would simply be illegal under current EU law, as long as it is a system of quotas based on nationality. Therefore, I would not expect it to have any effect on these teams at all: the rule cannot be applied within the EU.

Finally, how do you see the controversy surrounding ‘6+5’ playing out? Is it even possible to accurately speculate on how long it will take before the matter is finally put to rest?

Figel’: In the light of the Commission’s analysis of the UEFA Home-Grown Player Rule, we believe it is possible for sporting organizations to come up with proposals to bring more balance to the game of football without resorting to illegal direct discrimination. Such proposals have to be based on criteria other than nationality, such as criteria related to the training and education of players. We have explained this to FIFA, and we’ll be having further discussions with them about the issue over the next few months.

For more information on Commissioner Figel’, feel free to visit his homepage on the EC’s official website.