House of Commons - Education and Employment

Select Committee on Education and Employment Fifth Report

WORK PERMITS FOR OVERSEAS FOOTBALLERS

Work Permit Renewals

32. A work permit is valid for the duration of the player's contract with the club to which it is granted, normally subject to a maximum of three years. If the club wishes to retain the player once the permit has expired, it must apply for a new permit, which will be issued if the work permit criteria are still satisfied. Once a player has worked in the country for a continuous period of four years or more, he may apply to the Home Office for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK. A club wishing to sign a player who already has a work permit for another UK club must submit a new application. If the application is approved, a permit is issued in line with the new contract.[57]

33. In previous years, work permits had to be renewed each season. Players were required to have completed in at least 75 per cent of first team games for their clubs before a permit could be renewed for the following season. The Government told us that the new pre-entry criteria are "now deemed robust enough to ensure that only players of the highest quality will obtain a work permit".[58]

34. The FA pointed out that, under the old system, in cases where a permit was not renewed, clubs often had not only to pay off the player but to attempt to sell the player to an overseas club in what was effectively a buyer's market.[59] They also suggested that removing the requirement has made it easier for clubs to release unsuccessful players without the pressure of an extension application and to retain players "of the highest quality" as squad players, that is, players who are kept in the squad but do not necessarily play in the majority of first-team games.[60]

35. Garth Crooks of the IPS told us that about 30-40 per cent of players failed post-entry checks when they were in place and clubs will now be able to keep those players, who are not making a contribution to the development of the game at the highest level, as squad players.[61] On the other hand, Liverpool Football Club suggested that the Government had not gone far enough and that permits should be issued for the duration of a contract, however long.[62]

36. There are legitimate concerns about overseas players being brought in as cheap labour, or to make up numbers as squad players. This does not constitute a contribution to the game at the highest level, nor is it something which ought to be possible under a well-designed set of work permit arrangements, and it is one of the abuses which annual post-entry checks were originally intended to prevent. There is another mechanism which could help to allay these fears however: the introduction of a quota system.

A Quota System for Work Permit Players

37. Before the Bosman judgement, quota systems were used throughout Europe to protect the development of domestic players.[63] Since that judgement, quota systems of one sort or another have been retained for work permit players. In the English Premier League, for example, a team may not field more than three work permit players in any one match and the Scottish Football Association has a policy of supporting the issue of no more than ten work permits at any one time.[64]

38. The FA, the FA Premier League and the Football League were in favour of replacing the current work permit arrangements with a quota system operated by the governing bodies themselves. Proponents of a quota system have argued that it would:

(a) remove the need for all but the bare minimum criteria;

(b) encourage clubs to be selective in recruiting work permit players;

39. One of the arguments against the introduction of a quota system is that it does not contain any guarantee of quality. The Minister suggested that the Premier League was interested in a quota system because it would offer clubs greater freedom to recruit work permit players.[69] She told us, as she had previously told the Premier League, that she would not accept a quota system if it was not accompanied by some form of quality control.[70]

40. Another argument against relying wholly on a quota system is that it could lead to an increase in the number of work permit players. The FA conceded that this was a potential problem.[71] Table 2 shows the total number of work permit places which would be available under various levels of quota, based on the current number of 20 clubs in the Premier League and 24 in each of the three divisions of the Football League.

Table 2: Total work permits available in England under different quota regimes
League and Quota
FA Prem	Division 1	Division 2	Division 3	Total
2	2	2	2	184
3	2	2	1	180
2	2	1	1	136
1	1	1	1	92
2	1	0	0	64
1	1	0	0	44

The DfEE told us in September 1999 that 56 work permits had been issued (of which 44 were renewals) for players to compete in the 1999-2000 season. All but the smallest quota set out in Table 2—one work permit player per club in the Premiership and the First Division—would permit a significant expansion in the number of work permit players, if clubs decided to fill their quotas, as some witnesses suggested they might.

41. Table 3 shows the clubs in each league in Great Britain with two or more and three or more work permit players. Clubs with only one work permit player are not listed and the Table therefore does not indicate the total number of work permit players. There are sixteen clubs which employ more than one work permit player. Only six clubs would be affected by the introduction of a quota of two players per club in every division. A smaller quota of one player per club in Divisions Two and Three would affect only one more club. If a quota of one player per club in the Premiership and Division One were introduced, with no work permit players in the lower divisions, nine clubs would have to lose one player each and seven would have to lose more than one player.

Table 3: Clubs with more than one work permit player, Great Britain
Division	Two	Three or more (No.)
FA Premiership	ChelseaDerby CountyMiddlesboroughNewcastle UnitedSouthampton	Arsenal (3)Coventry City (3)Liverpool (4)West Ham United (3)
League Division One	Bolton WanderersCrystal Palace
League Division Three	Hull City
Scottish Premiership	AberdeenDundee United	Celtic (4)Rangers (4)
TOTAL CLUBS	10	6
TOTAL PLAYERS	20	21

Source: DfEE (Appendix 27).

42. A quota system for work permit players would have a number of advantages over the present system. It would be simpler and more transparently fair. It would reduce the administrative burden on the OLS and on football clubs. The fact that it is the favoured option of the sport's governing bodies also lends weight to the proposal. If clubs were likely to fill their quotas, all but the most draconian limits would lead to an increase in the total number of work permit players. A quota of just one player per club in each division would create places for around 50 per cent more work permit players. It would be necessary to prohibit the employment of work permit players entirely in Divisions Two and Three to keep the total number close to its present level. Any system in which the level of the quota varied between leagues and divisions could cause problems for clubs which were relegated. They could end up effectively being forced to sell their work permit players.

43. A quota system alone would be no guarantee of quality. It would make it just as easy (or just as difficult) for a club to sign a world-class player as to sign a work permit player of unproven ability. It would not guarantee that work permit players were making a contribution to the development of the game at the highest level. Nonetheless, we are conscious of the fact that, under the present system, there is no limit in principle to the number of work permits which might be issued.

Conclusions and Recommendations

44. The work permit system ought to balance the desire of clubs to have access to the best talent from around the world with the need to protect the development of young British players. The system also needs to be fair and transparent, as well as simple and quick—competing demands which can not always easily be met. One witness described the English league as "a honeypot to which football bees are gravitating", offering higher salaries than are available in many other European leagues.[72] We recognise the Government's desire to develop a system which is clear and efficient. The arrangements introduced in July 1999 went some way towards achieving this, but most would acknowledge that the present arrangements are less then ideal. We believe that a different approach is needed.

A quota covering both EEA and non-EEA players

45. If restrictions on the employment of overseas footballers are to make an effective contribution to protecting domestic youth development, they need to apply to all players who are not eligible to play for one of the home international teams, irrespective of their nationality or citizenship. It has not been possible for UEFA or any of the domestic football associations in the European Economic Area to operate such restrictions since the European Court of Justice's interpretation of the Treaty of Rome in the Bosman case prevented them from placing restrictions on the employment of EEA nationals.

46. We hope that the present negotiations between the EU institutions, the Member States and football's governing bodies lead to measures which will limit the negative consequences of the Bosman ruling. We urge the Government to support proposals which will allow limits to be placed on the number of players a club can have on its books who are not eligible for selection for the national side of the country in which they are playing. If the present negotiations are not successful to this end, we recommend that the Government support any future proposals of the same kind.

47. We recommend that, if the governing bodies are once again allowed to place restrictions on the number of foreign players—both EEA and non-EEA—which a club may have on its books, a single limit on the number of overseas players should be applied and that no distinction should be made between EEA nationals and work permit players. The limit should apply to those players who are not available to be selected to play for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, whatever their nationality, although a player from one part of the UK playing in another part of the UK should not be counted as a foreign player.[73]

A quota of non-EEA players only

48. Even if the governing bodies are not permitted to introduce nationality clauses covering EEA players, we believe that a quota system covering non-EEA players would be preferable to the present one. It would leave decisions about which players to sign to the clubs while encouraging them to be selective about which players to sign. It would be simple, fair, open and consistent. A number of different levels have been proposed for the quota. The LMA, for example, suggested a quota system of three in the Premiership, two in the First and Second Divisions and One in the Third Division.[74] This would permit a total of 180 work permit players in England alone—three times as many as there are at present in the whole of Great Britain.

49. If a quota governing EEA as well as non-EEA players proves impossible, we recommend that the governing bodies introduce a quota for work permit players. The quota would have to be set so that it did not permit a substantial increase in the number of work permit players. We recommend a quota of two work permit players per club in the Premiership and one in the First Division. We do not believe that a quota system would need to be accompanied by any further restrictions, although the Minister indicated that even with such a system, she would not accept the complete removal of all quality controls.[75] Nonetheless, the present criteria would clearly be too rigorous since they were formulated to work in the absence of a quota system and such rigorous requirements should not be imposed alongside a quota.

50. We believe that the salary which a player is offered is a good indicator of how highly the employing club rates him. It is true that the club is in a position to raise the salary it offers in order to obtain a permit, but we do not see why they would raise it above a level which they believed as commensurate with the player's ability. Examination of a player's salary would also guard against the recruitment of overseas players as "cheap labour", a concern which particularly troubles the players' organisations. Accordingly, we recommend that if the governing bodies introduce a quota system that would not permit the number of work permit players to be increased substantially above its present level, and the Government still feels that some form of quality control is necessary, the issue of a work permit should be based on a single criterion: that the salary which the club is offering would place the player in the upper quartile of the salary range for that club's players.

Transition to a quota system

51. If a quota system is to be introduced (whether or not it applies to EEA players) it must be accompanied by appropriate transitional arrangements to avoid penalising those clubs which already have more overseas players than the quota would allow. There are four Premiership clubs in England and two in Scotland with more than two work permit players and there are two clubs in the First Division with more than one. A number of clubs in the lower divisions also have one or more work permit players, and they would also be affected by a quota at the level we have proposed. If the quota covers EEA players, even more clubs would be affected. These clubs should not be required to dispose of players overnight. We recommend that, if a quota system is introduced, clubs which already have more players than the quota permits should be allowed to retain their existing overseas players until their contracts expire. We recommend that the same principle should apply to clubs which become subject to a smaller quota requirement by virtue of relegation, but only in respect of those players signed before the club had played half its league matches in the season at the end of which it was relegated.

New criteria

52. If the governing bodies do not move to a quota system, it will be necessary for the Government to retain tough but fair controls on the issue of work permits. Our principal concern with the present system is the use of the FIFA rankings and we discuss the problems with the rankings in paragraphs 21-26. We believe that their use should be discontinued. We recommend that, if a quota system is not to be introduced, a work permit should only be issued if:

(a) the player concerned has played for his present club's first team in at least 75 per cent of its matches;

(b) he has played for his country in at least 75 per cent of its competitive 'A' team matches for which he was available for selection; and

(c) the salary which the club is offering would place him in the upper quartile of the salary range for that club's players.

This will ensure that the player is established at both international and club level and that the British club which seeks to employ him is sufficiently confident of his ability to offer him a salary comparable with its current highest-paid players.

53. Garth Crooks, Chairman of the IPS, wrote to the Minister on 4 January 2000 urging her to ensure that players' disciplinary records were taken into account when decisions were taken on whether or not to issue a work permit.[76] Under the present criteria, international matches which a player misses because he is injured are not taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether he has played in 75 per cent of his home nation's international matches. The Minister told us that the same is true for matches which a player misses because he is banned from playing for disciplinary reasons.[77]

54. We do not believe that a player who habitually displays poor sportsmanship or who regularly misses matches through suspension can be said to be contributing to the development of the game at its highest level. We recommend that, for the purposes of determining the proportion of matches in which a player has participated, matches missed through suspension should be treated as matches for which he was not selected to play, rather than as matches missed through injury.

Work permit renewals

55. Under the present arrangements, a permit is issued for the duration of a player's contract or for three years, whichever is the shorter. Previously, they had to be renewed every year and renewal was granted if the player had played in at least 75 per cent of his club's first team matches (see paragraphs 32-35). Even with a quota system and a minimum criterion, we believe that it will still be necessary for the OLS to satisfy itself periodically that a work permit player continues to contribute to the game at the highest level. We recommend that work permits should be subject to renewal every two years. Permits should be renewed automatically if a player has played in at least 75 per cent of his club's first team games for which he was fit to play.

The Review Panel

56. We believe that one of the benefits of the introduction of a quota system would be that it would no longer be necessary for applications to be subject to review in the present manner. We do not believe that, under a quota system or under the salary criterion we have proposed, there would be any need for applications to be re-considered if they clearly did not meet the criterion. We recognise that, however simple the criteria or quota, there may still be legitimate differences of opinion over the relevant matters of fact. We recommend that the Review Panel should be retained, but its terms of reference should extend only to determining disputes between clubs and the OLS over matters of fact relating to work permit applications.

57 Ev. p. 48, paras. 17-19. Back

58 Ev. p. 50, para. 44. Back

59 Ev. p. 3, para. 14. Back

60 Q. 13. Back

61 Q. 41. Back

62 Appendix 7. Back

63 See paragraphs 8 and 9, above. Back

64 Appendix 4. Back