Greg Dyke has suggested stricter laws on home grown players, to try and bring more English players through. As it stands, around a third of players in the Premier League are from the country of the league, which is the lowest percentage in the top 5 European leagues. The FA clearly believe that this is why we are perceived to be doing badly at international level, which on the surface makes sense. However, dig a little deeper and there are numerous problems.
1. We are not underachieving.
Why do us English football fans always think we should be winning competitions, or even making semi finals? Compared to Brazil, France, Germany, the Netherlands and nearly every top nation in football are much bigger, and importantly have more top coaches than we do. Germany are the prime example of a top football nation and have a population that far, far eclipses ours so will inevitably produce more top players - that being said, there are plenty of smaller nations who produce plenty of quality footballers. Belgium have a squad of players that was the third most expensive at the World Cup, and yet they are no bigger than England. A large part of this is down to a coaching problem. It costs around £5000 to do your coaching badges in England, but about a tenth of that in continental Europe. Belgium also had a practical plan to coach youngsters, rather than just 'more players playing'.
2. Correlation does not equal causation.
Yes, it is true that many top countries have more of their own players playing in the top leagues, so there is a link between the quality of the national team and the amount of their players in their league. However, that does not mean that the amount of players in the league makes the national team better - in fact, it means quite the opposite. Because our players aren't very good, we don't have a majority of players in the top league. If the England national team isn't great, then why would one of the top leagues feature a majority of English players?
The idea that playing more English players would improve them is so far wrong. The more foreign coaches and players we have in England the more they will learn new techniques, new methods and new tactical ideas. Also, playing average English players every week won't turn them into World Cup winners - otherwise Burnley would be top of the league. We don't need more English players; quality beats quantity.
So what is the solution?
It's hard to find a solution to a problem which is dubious, but if we really do want to become a better nation, restricting the foreign input is not the way to do it - in fact, we need more foreign coaches. We also need to lower the prices of coaching courses to get more coaches, increasing the quality of the training that our young players receive and hopefully the quality of the national team. We should also set out a plan for coaching similar to how Belgium did - pick a style, an identity, and stick to it. Whether it's creating counter attacking players in the mould of Germany, or technical players like Spain, or defensive minded players like Italy, we need a style and a plan.
I'm not suggesting that these changes will make us World Cup winners, or even make a significant difference, but it's more likely to than reducing the quality of our top league by playing more average English players.
