UK Work Permit regulations

[Guest Can. in UK]

This is an excerpt from an article on a T&T player who has just signed for Southampton:

"Although he only has two full international caps, new regulations concerning Commonwealth countries will enable Jones to get a two-year student visa.

This will enable him to work and Saints hope that by the end of the two-years, he will have played in the requisite 75% of internationals to enable him to get a full work permit."

If this is the case, then what was the problem with Atiba Hutchison signing with Man. City? Or Pozniak with a Scottish side (which was rumoured)?

On the other side, I suppose this will mean more opportunities in the UK for Canadian players.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Can. in UK

"Although he only has two full international caps, new regulations concerning Commonwealth countries will enable Jones to get a two-year student visa.

This will enable him to work and Saints hope that by the end of the two-years, he will have played in the requisite 75% of internationals to enable him to get a full work permit."

If this is the case, then what was the problem with Atiba Hutchison signing with Man. City? Or Pozniak with a Scottish side (which was rumoured)?

Good question! It interesting that this is the first that I have heard about this rule. Personally, I have always been sceptical about that rule in the UK that ties the players work rules ( opportunities) to thier national team's fifa ranking. I have always believed that if a club really want a player, the rules become irrelevant and insignificant and, as is the case with many other career and professionals opportunity, rules only exist to create excuses for potential employers. In the case of Atiba and Poz, I am sure that if those clubs would really want them, they would have found a way to make it happen.

Consider this, If our Fifa ranking was a detriment in signing Atiba, then why was Man City interested in him in the first place and, Unless I am mistaken, was it not Atiba who rejected Man City's offer rather than the other way around?

[Gian-Luca]

I don't think Atiba ever had an offer from Man City, due to work permit reasons. Reportedly Atiba was (and is) very interested in playing in England.

Keep in mind that Spurs didn't get Bobby Convey due to work permit regulations.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I don't think Atiba ever had an offer from Man City, due to work permit reasons. Reportedly Atiba was (and is) very interested in playing in England.

Keep in mind that Spurs didn't get Bobby Convey due to work permit regulations.

But Convey doesn't have to worry about about the FIFA ranking!. The US are well within the allowable fifa ranking that would permit him to land a job within the EPL. So I am still not convinced by that argument. So there you have it more rules and what is it that prevented Convey from going to spurs when when their own starting keeper is also american? They must have found a rule to keep convey out or they got around rules to get casey Keller.

Also, we know from published reports that Freddy Adu was on Man U's radar. But why would he have been if wouldn't have been able to get a work permit. You might say that his case was for a youth side, But why would such a rule apply for senior teams but not development teams when the point of such rule, in the first place, is to protect local players and give them an advantage.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Free kick

But Convey doesn't have to worry about about the FIFA ranking!.

That doesn't matter - there's two criteria you have to meet for the rule, Convey didn't meet them both (or so it was decried on appeal). The other main criteria being that you have to played in 75% of the national team matches over a certain recent period. His rejection suggests that the criteria used by the UK is being taken seriously for granting permits (unless you are going to argue that only one of the two criteria is observed, but there's no evidence that I am aware of that suggests it).

For further evidence, if I recall correctly Jeff Clarke was denied a work permit from an English team that wanted to sign him not because he didn't meet the 75% criteria (he was a regular under Osieck at the time) but because Canada's ranking was outside the top 75. Same with Bent when Preston North End wanted him, and I believe he only got in later on with Plymouth once we temporarily met the FIFA ranking criteria.

Overall it suggests that the criteria is taken seriously. I brought up Convey because by all accounts Tottenham really did want him, but despite that and the belief they would get a work permit, they didn't simply "find a way to make it happen". Convey is with DC United instead.

[Free kick]

Sorry GL, I added a paragraph about Freddy Adu to my previous post at about the same time that you were posting a reply to that same post.

But again, The tim Howard example is an even better one. Its no secret that the spirit of these rules are rooted in protectionism. So why would such rules apply to senior team players but presumably not to development teams ( as would have been the case with Adu). Adu would have potentially taken an opportunity away from a domestic kid. If your thinking in terms of protectionism , isn't the young players chances more worthing of protecting than the senior team foreign transfer.

Conclusion, this is a very very bad rule or a very murky one.

[Jarrek]

In any case our FIFA ranking doesn't help us. I think we'll fall below 100 just before the Belize matchup.

[Gian-Luca]

Re: Howard, if we are going to cynical about the work permit system in the UK, I would be more cynical about the difference between Man U. and Tottenham (or perhaps any other EPL team) than the difference between Howard & Convey.

Hey, the rule does suck, it's bad & it is murky - but I just don't think we can say the criteria has no effect at all. Clubs like Darlington (who wanted Jeff Clarke) can't simply wave their Ma(nu)gic wand to get what they want.

[Free kick]

a quick google search and I found this site that touches on this topic. scroll down to about a quarter of the page to the section taht deals with Football transfers ( the rest of the doc deals with regular employment).

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960318/text/60318w10.htm

Football Players (Transfer System)

Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for

18 Mar 1996 : Column: 38

Education and Employment if she will make a statement on (i) the new criteria for work permits for foreign football players (a) when they first enter the country, ( after the first full 12 months and set number of appearances and © on moving to another United Kingdom football club and (ii) the likely effect on extra work permits of the EC ruling on foreign players; and if she will meet the Football Association and the Professional Footballers Association in the near future to discuss the new situation and the outcome of the Bosman decision. [21260]

Mrs. Gillan: The work permit criteria remain unchanged for foreign footballers when they first enter the country and where they are retained by their club after the first or successive season. Permits are normally issued only for current internationals. To qualify for extension of their work permits, footballers must normally play in approximately 75 per cent. of their club's first team games. The work permit criteria governing transfer to another club have been revised to allow players who are current internationals one work permit transfer to a new club regardless of the number of first team appearances they have made for their existing club. Thereafter, to qualify for a further permit they will again normally be expected to play in approximately 75 per cent. of first team games.

The Department consulted the football bodies about the revised criteria. The decision of the European Court of Justice in the Bosman case concerns transfer fees and rules operated by the sporting bodies. It does not affect the issue of work permits.

____________________________

Interestingly, there is no reference to fifa ranking on this page. What I am also wondering about is the fact that Atiba, along with other canadians, went to Scandinavia, presumably as stepping stone to other pro opportunities in the UK and Europe. If his service to the Scandinavia football doesn't yet qualify him for a work permit in the UK, then when will he qualify? Also, what about the other canadians in Scandinavia? .

[Free kick]

http://www.soccertimes.com/americans/2003/aug12.htm

Obtaining a work permit is part of the process for Americans seeking to play in England.

By Robert Wagman

SoccerTimes

(Tuesday, August 12, 2003) -- For the second time in a month, the ability of a young American to move to a team in England's Premier Division is dependent on whether the player will be granted a British "work permit." And, in what has become the routine, the permit will likely be granted on appeal after the initial application is rejected.

A month ago, goalkeeper Tim Howard's move from Major League Soccer's MetroStars to Manchester United was finalized when a work permit was issued on appeal. Now, D.C. United midfielder Bobby Convey is awaiting word if his permit application will be approved so he can join Tottenham Hotspur.

The process of gaining the necessary document is not that complicated, but is little understood on this side of the Atlantic.

Under British law, the Immigration Act 1971 amended many times since, "resident workers" can be employed by British companies in Britain, or by foreign companies licensed to do business in Britain. Since the establishment of the European Economic Community (also know as the European Union and the European Economic Area), and Great Britain's joining of the Union, a resident worker has become defined as not only a citizen of the UK, but a citizen of any EU country.

More recently, because of court rulings, the term has become even more elastic to include citizens of Eastern European countries who will be joining the EU next year and if another court decision is upheld, citizens of some 70 Third World countries, including a number in the Caribbean, who have been granted special trade status with the EU by treaty.

The work permit arrangement allows employers based in the United Kingdom to employ people who are not nationals of a European Economic Area (EEA) country and thus are not statutorily entitled to work in the UK. The theory is that resident workers should not be denied job opportunities by a foreigner taking the job. It is not all that different than U.S. employment laws as they relate to non-U.S. citizens.

The Home Office, which administers the program, says its aim "is to strike the right balance between enabling employers to recruit or transfer skilled people from abroad and protecting job opportunities for resident workers."

There are numerous job categories set up, including one, "sports and entertainer." For many jobs, a company has to make a case that no British national is available to fill the position. However, the Home Office has made a special deal with the governing bodies of various professional sports, including the Football Association for soccer.

"In some sports, we recognize that there are likely to be shortages of 'resident workers' who are skilled at the highest level. We have agreed with the governing bodies and players' representatives that work permit applications for these posts do not need to be supported by evidence of the availability of 'resident workers.' This information is made available to employers in the sport through the governing bodies and players' representatives."

Under the agreement between the FA and the Home Office, to get a work permit a non-resident soccer player has to show he is a player of "international distinction." To quantify this abstraction, the FA and the Home Office agreed on a formula to define international distinction. A player has to have played in two-thirds of his country's "official" - that is FIFA sanctioned - national team matches over the past two years and he has to be coming from a country that ranks in the top 70 of FIFA rankings. Official matches do not include friendly matches or exhibitions.

The process for a player to obtain a work permit is automatic in most cases. The company (team) intending on employing a player makes the application -- an individual cannot make it on his own -- and upon presentation of proof the player meets the two-thirds criteria, the work permit is issued.

Work permits are issued for specific numbers of years and can be renewed. They cannot be transferred if a player moves from one team to another. A new application has to be filed.

The problem comes when a player does not meet the "two-thirds" criteria. Howard did not meet it, nor does Convey. In such a case, the rejection of the initial application is automatic, but the employer has the right to appeal. That is what happened in the Howard case last month and will also happen to Convey's application.

The matter then goes to a six-person "Appeals Team," which operates under no set criteria or standards. It simply must determine via the evidence put before it that a player appealing is one of "international distinction." The panel also has the authority to issue a hardship waiver, which has previously been known to happen in the case of American applicant.

In Howard's case, for instance, much was made of the fact that he qualified for a Hungarian passport because his mother is Hungarian. He had applied and was waiting for a passport which would have erased his need for a work permit. Theoretically, the Appeals Team could take note the passport was in the process of being issued, but it simply ruled he was a player of "international distinction," and issued a permit.

In Convey's case, he will likely present evidence from United States Soccer Federation officials, including coach Bruce Arena, and probably from MLS, as well as from the FA and from Tottenham. Most believe that will be enough to support his claim of being a player of international distinction.

If anything, this process has become easier in recent years. Citizens of so many countries now no longer require permits that many Appeals Teams have all but given up rejecting any applicant with a good job waiting, if he can make even a minimal case for his talent.

[Gordon]

The rules for playing in the UK are dumb and designed to limit the number of foreigners who qualify. Instead of just sticking with a 3 foreigner rule, they limit it to effectively, 11 players from 75 nations. Thus meaning the 15th best Brazilian can't get a job in the UK because he won't play the 75% of Brazil's games.

As a commonwealth country however, we have one small advantage in that anyone with a grandparent of UK descent automatically qualifies for a work permit - whether as a footballer, or a doctor or a lorryman (truck driver). Helps out the anglo's but is no benefit to the Hutchinson's, Deguzman's and Stalteri's of the country who have to qulaify through the 75-75 rule. Goofy that the best Canadian footballers might not qualify while someone whose grandfather came over as a 2 year old in 1913 is in.

As for Howard, the work permit was originally denied then won on appeal. There is room for appeal (this applies to Hutchinson, DeGuzman, Stalteri and the 15th best Brazilian as well) if one is viewed as sufficiently skilled as to make a valuable contribution to the development of the game in the UK. i.e. a George Weah rule. Howard was deemed as fitting that criteria (PFA Best 11 would suggest it so) while Convey was not deemed at that level (performance on Saturday would suggest that this too is so). A panel made up of industry profesionals does the merit rating rather than bureaucrats.

All in all, however, I like the restrictions on numbers of foreigners without any ranking of number of games considerations. Let the managers decide which three foreigners will help their side and let it go at that.

[Free kick]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

The rules for playing in the UK are dumb and designed to limit the number of foreigners who qualify. Instead of just sticking with a 3 foreigner rule, they limit it to effectively, 11 players from 75 nations. Thus meaning the 15th best Brazilian can't get a job in the UK because he won't play the 75% of Brazil's games.

As a commonwealth country however, we have one small advantage in that anyone with a grandparent of UK descent automatically qualifies for a work permit - whether as a footballer, or a doctor or a lorryman (truck driver). Helps out the anglo's but is no benefit to the Hutchinson's, Deguzman's and Stalteri's of the country who have to qulaify through the 75-75 rule. Goofy that the best Canadian footballers might not qualify while someone whose grandfather came over as a 2 year old in 1913 is in.

As for Howard, the work permit was originally denied then won on appeal. There is room for appeal (this applies to Hutchinson, DeGuzman, Stalteri and the 15th best Brazilian as well) if one is viewed as sufficiently skilled as to make a valuable contribution to the development of the game in the UK. i.e. a George Weah rule. Howard was deemed as fitting that criteria (PFA Best 11 would suggest it so) while Convey was not deemed at that level (performance on Saturday would suggest that this too is so). A panel made up of industry profesionals does the merit rating rather than bureaucrats.

All in all, however, I like the restrictions on numbers of foreigners without any ranking of number of games considerations. Let the managers decide which three foreigners will help their side and let it go at that.

I wonder about youth players though. I am not sure how Freddy Adu would have qualified under these kind of restrictions. I wonder if Man U would argue that he falls under the category of an apprentice or in the same category as a student. If so then what happens when he is ready to graduate to first team action? would he be exempt because he came through the development system? if so why and how long would he have to have played in the UK? If there is an exemption for cases such as Freddy Adu, then it makes the rule even more silly. The last thing you want to do is deny the local kids the same opportunity that the Freddy Adu's would have gotten.

Never really been a fan of Don Cherry's anti-European stance when it comes to playing in the NHL. But where I saw some merit in his argument is in relation to allowing foreigners into Junior Hockey. Pro hockey is one thing since fans are concerned in the entertainment value and to call your product the best, you cannot exclude some of the best talent available. But Junior hockey is another story. Its not the entertainmnet business as much as a development stage for professionals and that should be to the benefit of domestic kids.

But if Freddy Adu were allowed to go to Man U and Convey not be permitted to work at Spurs then it would seem that the British have it all backwards. Whose doing more harm to the english game, The Conveys of the world who would have played at Spurs thus forcing the 23rd man on the Spurs roster to be loaned out to another lowere divsion team or reserve side. Or would the Freddy Adu's of the world who would even deny potentially another 23th man to ever become a professional?

[Gordon]

I suspect that the reason Freddie didn't go to Man U is that FIFA prohibits players under the age of 18 from playing professionally in another country. Thus, in order to collect a wage (as he is from MLS), he would have to qualify as UK/EU. Freddie has been tremendously hyped and I am sure he could have won an appeal on the grounds of being exceptionally talented and thus a benefit to the game in the UK. For whatever value you place on Convey, he has never generated the hype/enthusiasm/accolades Freddie has, nor was he a star at the U-17 at 14.

[RS]

IIRC MLS and Spurs had agreed to a transfer fee and Convey was already in London when the work permit was denied, so obviuously Spurs were trying everything the could to get Convey over there.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

IIRC MLS and Spurs had agreed to a transfer fee and Convey was already in London when the work permit was denied, so obviuously Spurs were trying everything the could to get Convey over there.

You are right. His work permit was turned down in appeal as Convey was not deemed sufficiently talented to warrant an exception to the 75% rule.