Annex Q
Letter from the Football League
WORK PERMITS
FOR NON-EEA
FOOTBALLERS
It is with regret that I have to write to you
so soon after the introduction of new criteria to deal with the
above.
You will be aware that a Review Panel has already
sat on two occasions to deal with appeals from clubs. I must advise
you that following recommendations made by the Panel, which were
subsequently endorsed by your Department, the position regarding
Work Permits is more confused than ever. This is all the more
disturbing when the stated objective of revising the criteria
was to make them more transparent.
The League's Board of Directors have asked me
to take the matter up with you with a view to requesting that
the new provisions be urgently reviewed. We are particularly concerned
that so much weight is given to something as arbitrary and unreliable
as FIFA rankings, a procedure which both we and the FA Premier
League have consistently opposed. Indeed, we were led to believe
that, inter alia, FIFA ranking indicators would not form
part of the criteria if voluntary quotas could be agreed. As a
League, we were perfectly content for the "quality control"
test of 75 per cent of international appearances advocated by
your office to remain.
It was disappointing, therefore, that following
the Premier League's inability to accept a voluntary quota system
whilst it included the international appearance test, that FIFA
rankings subsequently became a principal feature of the revised
criteria. This was all the more surprising when such an element
had never previously been part of the formal criteria.
There is a strong feeling amongst Football League
clubs that the introduction of FIFA rankings is a means of discriminating
against them when the removal of other criteria has actually made
it easier for clubs higher up the scale to sign players merely
as standbys. Despite the assertions of the previous Minister for
Sport at our meeting in June that "football is now a squad
game", players who are signed to fill in as standbys can
hardly be claimed to be "making a significant contribution
to the development of the British game . . . "
which remains as always the principle at the heart of the Work
Permit criteria.
Meanwhile, Football League clubs like Blackpool
are refused the opportunity of signing an established Estonian
international on the basis that he comes from a country outside
the top 70 countries in the FIFA rankings. This despite him being
recommended by the Scottish national team manager whose side has
faced Estonia on no fewer than four occasions in the last three
years. Estonia themselves appear to have climbed the FIFA rankings
at a remarkable rate; in December 1995 they stood 129th whilst
in July this year they had climbed to 86th; in the last three
months alone Estonia have moved up from 86th to 74th (as at 15
September 1999). Although the new criteria averages the rankings
over two years, it is clear from this progress that emerging nations
are at a distinct disadvantage under the new Work Permit arrangements.
Furthermore, the fact that a country can move up 12 places in
three months demonstrates how haphazard this yardstick is. We
do not believe FIFA rankings were ever intended to be used in
this way.
The uncertainty and confusion amongst League
clubs has been exacerbated by on the one hand the refusal of a
Work Permit for an established Estonian international whilst an
application for an Indian international has been approved. I understand
the special circumstances surrounding the Indian player and quite
frankly as an established international in his own right there
is no reason for him not to be granted entry. But in terms of
playing credentials there really is no comparison between the
two with the Estonian standing out head and shoulders above the
Indian.
These decisions do nothing for the objective
of "transparency", indeed they have only served to shroud
the new arrangements in a cloak of mystery.
I would urge you, therefore, to institute an
immediate review of the Work Permit criteria in order to re-establish
a workable process which has credibility within the industry and
which doesn't seek to prejudice Football League clubs. As you
will be aware The Football League represents 72 of the 92 professional
clubs in England and Wales who in turn employ over 70 per cent
of the players who are currently contracted on a full-time basis.
Every League club has its own career path for developing home-grown
talent and is even required to have a business plan to underpin
this process. Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the opportunity
to trade overseas, occasionally outside the European Economic
Area, should not be restricted, either directly or indirectly,
to a minority of clubs who can afford to sign players from the
more established countries. The domestic transfer market has been
undermined significantly by the influx of players from abroad,
both from within the EEA and outside it, at the top end of the
game. To fetter clubs lower down who have suffered a reduction
in transfer income at home from signing foreign nationals who
satisfy the basic principle alluded to earlier but come from less
traditional footballing backgrounds is, we believe, both inequitable
and unjustifiable. On the other hand, we accept the need for quality
control and the requirement to restrict numbers. For our part
we would be willing to revisit the principle of quotas if this
would be of any assistance to you but we do believe this matter
should be urgently addressed.
Please be assured that we will enter any discussions
you decide to institute in a constructive way but we must endeavour
to remove the present mistrust and suspicion.
Richard C Scudamore
Chief Executive
The Football League
| 
