Foreign Players in the TPL
by Paul Hewitt
What effect do foreign players have on the domestic game? That question, and the accompanying debate, will be familiar to anyone who follows any of the major European leagues. In this month’s column, we take a close look at the issue and we get the foreign perspective on foreigners in Thai football.
Chonburi F.C. technical director Witthaya Laohakul recently claimed through the national media that there are far too many foreigners playing in the TPL. He said that the situation will have a detrimental effect on the national team in the long term as fewer home grown players will be able to play in the top flight, and he believes it will hinder Thai clubs’ progress in Asian competitions.
It was perhaps a strange statement considering his employers currently have the maximum quota of foreign players on their books. Nevertheless, is there any merit in his claims? Those who keenly follow the English Premier League may be surprised at his outburst: TPL clubs are allowed a total of seven foreigners in their squads, but only five on the pitch at any one time (the ‘7+5 rule’); EPL clubs, of course, are allowed as many as they like. It’s not unknown for English clubs to field a starting eleven containing not a single Englishman, and Arsenal, to take one example, currently only have three English players in their first team squad. Based on a comparison between Thailand and England then one may be inclined to dismiss Khun Witthaya’s comments as at best an over-reaction, and at worst xenophobic scapegoating.
But perhaps a fairer comparison would be between the TPL and other leagues in the region. In Indonesia, clubs are allowed five foreign players in their squads but two must come from Asia; Singapore implements a similar system. In Vietnam, clubs may have four foreigners in their squads but can only use three in one match, whilst in Malaysia there is a total ban on foreign players in the domestic league – Malaysians only. So all of the above leagues permit fewer foreigners than does the TPL . And the national team from which of these countries has been the most successful in recent years? Malaysia.
Yes indeed, foreigner-free Malaysia won the football tournament at the 2009 SEA Games – beating Thailand along the way – and they won the AFF Cup (a tournament contested by the eight best sides in Southeast Asia) in December, beating Indonesia in the final. Vietnam won the previous edition in 2008. It’s too simplistic to state that this proves that there is a hypodermic link between a smaller quota of foreign players per club and national team success – Thailand outperformed all of the above in 2011 Asian Cup qualifying and in the 2010 Asian Games – but it certainly provides fuel for those that would like to see a reduction.
Franz Scwarzwaelder, the Samut Songkhram goalkeeping coach, is one of them. He says "I think the number of foreigners allowed is too high. It should be three or four maximum. I've coached a lot of very good Thai players at youth level and it is frustrating when they can't get into Thai league squads because of the large number of overseas players, who aren't necessarily better. I'd definitely like it to be reduced to help the local players."
But David Le Bras, a French midfielder who has played in the TPL for BEC Tero Sasana and Chonburi, begs to differ: “I don’t think the quantity of foreign players is a problem. Three or five or seven or nine, you have to let the club choose what they want. Football is international and it’s also a business. Personally, I try to help the younger Thai players to develop, but I can’t speak for other foreigners.”
A less hackneyed explanation for the alleged steady decline of the national team and lack of club success in Asia has recently been put forward. Long-term follower of the Thai national team Kevin Wolf contends that the main problem isn’t too many foreigners in Thai football but too few Thais playing overseas. The newly moneyed TPL has encouraged Thai players who had been plying their trade abroad to return, and those who haven’t played outside of Thailand see little incentive to do so given the wages now on offer in their homeland.
Kevin takes up the argument:“During the Asian Cup in Qatar, one point the commentators kept harping on about was how the top three sides had squads with a large proportion (over 50%) of foreign-based players. They felt that this helped Japan, Australia and South Korea as these players were exposed to lots of different playing styles, competitive situations, and tactical ideas – not to mention having to settle into a foreign culture off the pitch.
It got me thinking about Thailand. About a decade ago Thailand had a pretty competitive side. Not top of the Asian tree, but good enough to hover just outside the top ten or twelve. They had a number of players based abroad, mainly in Singapore and Vietnam. Even three or four years ago, players of the current vintage were abroad: Teeratep Winothai (Belgium), Datsakorn Thonglao (Vietnam), Therdsak Chaiman (Singapore), Sutee Suksomkit (Singapore and Australia), Pipat Thonkanya (Vietnam and Indonesia), Sarayoot Chaikamdee (Vietnam), and the list goes on. The TPL is now paying well, and all of the above have moved home. Their ages and families may have been factors, but where is the next crop? Are they more interested in money than proving themselves elsewhere?
Currently, the only overseas player is Surat Sukha at Melbourne Victory. Is the success of the TPL affecting the results of the national team by retaining players that previously may have moved abroad thereby making them too comfortable?
These players would gain more maturity as well as having to deal with a situation where they were playing for their livelihoods as opposed to being able to simply move down the road to a different club. Therefore they are forced to be more consistent and professional.”
This isn’t so much a case of art imitating life but sport imitating politics. When a country falls on hard times how often are the foreigners in that country the first to have an accusing finger pointed at them? “At continental club competitions, Thai teams have not fared well probably because of the 7+5 rule.” That laughably crude generalisation appeared in an English-language daily in Thailand recently. As the 7+5 rule was only introduced last year the writer can only be referring to Muangthong United’s early Champions League exit in February. In a one-off qualifying match away from home, the 2010 champions were edged out on sudden-death penalties by Sriwijaya of Indonesia.
Had MTU won the penalty lottery then that would presumably mean that there aren’t too many foreigners in Thai football. That’s the problem with Witthaya Laohakul’s and the aforementioned writer’s argument: as soon as a Thai club gets to the final of the AFC Cup, for example, or Thailand wins another competition, then logic dictates that their argument has to be abandoned.
Most Thai clubs scarcely have a youth system to speak of. The standard of refereeing is poor. The standard of pitches is poor. Most coaches are under-qualified. Players’ and coaches’ on-field discipline is, frankly, disgraceful. Tackling these problems should be the priority. But that requires time and money. Attacking foreign players requires neither but it’s easier for many in the game to swallow.
No comments:
Post a Comment