1. Dodson Patrick McGerr
Final Paper 12/13/14
“Fancy Dans” and “Gianni-Come-Latelys”:
The Debate Over Foreign Players in English Football after the Bosman Ruling
For more than a century, football has been the “English game.” It remains very popular in
England today. Yet in some important ways, English football is no longer very English. Since the
1970s, foreigners have made up an increasingly large percentage of the players at the top of
professional football. The issue of foreign players became critical when the European Economic
Union (EEU) ruled in 1995 that English football could no longer restrict the number of
foreigners allowed to play. The so-called Bosman ruling, which came after the controversies of
the Thatcher era and during the debates over Britain’s participation in the EEU, could easily have
led to a major anti-foreign backlash. In the ten years after the Bosman ruling, there was in fact a
long argument about foreigners in the English game, especially at the very top, the Premier
League. While there was some criticism of the foreigners in the league, English fans, journalists,
and club officials were surprisingly positive about having players from the rest of Europe and
even from other continents. There was a lot of worry that the foreigners would keep young
English players from getting their chance in professional football. Despite that concern, English
footballers, fans, and writers mostly welcomed foreigners to the English game. Their reaction
reveals a lot about England in the age of Thatcher and globalization and about the culture of
sports.
Football was the “English game.” Whether it was invented in England or not, the sport
was played there under a set of formal rules first in the mid-nineteenth century before becoming
an organized sport in other countries. By the start of the twentieth century, this national sport had
spread around the world. But even though many talented players emerged overseas, English
football was not open to importing them. Although there was a foreign player in England as early
as 1888, opposition to foreigners in the home of the “English Game” kept their numbers low for
decades. In 1931 and 1952, the sport’s governing group, the Football Association (FA), passed
rules basically banning foreign players. But in 1978, the European Community (EC), which
Britain had joined five years earlier, ruled that football teams could not ban players from other
EC member nations. The FA immediately limited the number of foreign players to two per club.

2. But Tottenham signed two Argentinian stars whose great performances made English clubs and
fans realize the potential of foreign players. Gradually, English teams signed foreigners. In 1988-
1989, Arsenal became the last team to win the League with an all-domestic squad. Nevertheless,
foreign players were a rarity as late as 1993-1994. In these years, English clubs and fans worried
more about losing homegrown players to rich clubs on the continent than about foreigners
coming to London and Manchester.iii
In 1995, the European Court of Justice of the European Economic Union decided in favor
of Jean-Marc Bosman in a case that was to have major repercussions for the sporting world.
Prior to the case, European clubs could stop footballers from signing with a team in another
country, even if their contracts expired. When Bosman’s Belgian club prevented his move to a
French club by demanding a transfer fee, Bosman sued the team. The European Court of Justice
ruled not only that the transfer system was unfair but also that limits on the number of foreign
players per club were illegal, too. After the European Court of Justice’s decision, European
players could move around Europe with much greater freedom.iii When a player’s contract
expired, he could sign for a team in another European country without that club paying a transfer
fee. As a result of the Bosman ruling, the Premier League had to do away with its restrictions on
foreign players, which by then limited Premier League clubs to registering three foreign players
from outside the British Isles per game.iv
There was another major event that intensified the impact of the Bosman ruling on
English football. In 1992, the new Premier League had formed as the top flight of English
football. The new league had won a record fee worth 191 million pounds sterling from British
Sky Broadcasting for the broadcasting rights of games. This deal brought a huge injection of
money into the Premier League that was unprecedented in England and indeed world football.
The combination of the Bosman ruling with this new record Sky Sports television contract set up
a massive influx of foreigner players into the Premier League. Prior to the inception of the
Premier League and the Sky Sports broadcasting deal, England had generally not attracted the
best and most well-known foreign players. The foreign players that did come to England to play
professionally were usually lesser known players. These men were usually content to play for
lower wages than their English counterparts.v With the newly enriched Premier League, this
situation quickly changed. Premier League clubs could now afford to pay exorbitant transfer fees
to prise stars from their continental clubs and offer the players massive deals to entice them to

3. come to England. Clubs in other European leagues, even the once-dominant Italian Serie A,
could not afford to compete with the Premier League and its rich broadcasting and sponsorship
deals.
Even before the European Court of Justice handed down its ruling in December 1995,
there were already concerns in England about the ramifications for the English game. Many,
such as Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the players’ union, the Professional Footballers’
Association, worried that if Bosman won his case, it would spell danger. Critics worried that the
decision would harm smaller English clubs, who would be unable to keep their players if large
clubs came calling. Brian Glanville, of The People, claimed that “Bosman…would be applying a
cure which is worse than the disease – in many cases, a potentially fatal cure.” Glanville echoed
the fears of Taylor and others when he cautioned that the “worst case scenario [is] one in which
the vast amounts of money now pouring into our game from TV and sponsorship would go
largely to players who, at the upper levels, already earn vast sums.”vi Even before the European
Court of Justice handed down it ruling, a “wave of panic” was already said to be “blowing
through football.”vii
Soon after the Bosman ruling and the lifting of foreign player restrictions, English teams
began buying foreign players in greater numbers. For many people, the situation confirmed their
fears for the future of the “English game.” Some now expressed distaste for the foreign players
and lamented their non-Englishness, while others worried about the effect on the development of
younger English players. One such critic of the new foreign players was columnist Vic Robbie,
who clearly lamented the diminishing influence and hegemony of English players in the English
top flight. “You could once spot a British footballer at a hundred paces,” sighed Robbie, likely
wistfully and longingly. “His hair was parted down the middle and plastered down with
Bryllcreem, his sleeves were rolled up above his elbows, and he always wore a sensible pair of
boots.”viii Robbie seemed to suggest that foreigners were impractical and flashy compared to
their more traditional British counterparts. More than that, he suggested that the game was losing
its English character. “The names were straightforward and easy to pronounce,” the journalist
sighed. “All that’s changed. Now the game is peopled by the Amokachis, Mikhailichenkos,
Kinkladzes, and Paatelainens.” Robbie feared that the influx of foreign players—both excellent
and average—would lead to the English player becoming extinct in the “English game.” The
writer seemed to think that English clubs suddenly could not resist foreigners. The obviously

4. foreign a player was, the more likely the English teams were to throw large amounts of money at
them.
Robbie also opened up a second line of attack. Admitting that the importation of foreign
players might give teams “ephemeral success,” he predicted that “in the long run” the teams
would stop developing young homegrown English players. As a result, the use of foreigners
“will be injurious to the future of football in this country.”ix PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor,
ever the staunch opponent of foreign footballers, also voiced his concerns about the long-term
effects of the influx of foreign footballers. Just like Robbie, Taylor accused British clubs of
chasing success in the short term to the detriment of the long term and the development of
British talents. ``The pattern now is to go for a ready made international rather than a rough
diamond,” the union executive claimed. “Clubs want ready made success. Most are not prepared
to be patient." To prove his point, Taylor noted how well young English players had done in
European competition. “We have to put more resources into youth development,” he concluded.
“I wouldn't want that momentum to be lost."x
Taylor and Robbie, while clearly disliking foreign players, still tried to make a basically
practical argument that even good foreign players would lead to the neglect of young English
talent. But some other English club officials, journalists, and fans were openly derogatory about
the foreign players who came to play in the Premier League. Criticisms played on some obvious
stereotypes. One of the chief accusations was that the foreign footballers were flighty, unreliable,
and greedy. Alan Sugar, owner of Tottenham Hotspur, was a vocal critic of foreign footballers
ho claimed that the Bosman ruling had damaged the English game. Sugar complained that
foreign footballers were hungry “mercenaries” who only came to the Premier League for the
money. He thought they were likely to come to England for a big payday, discover that they did
not like the country, and then leave after a year. “What’s the point of signing Carlos Kickabout
from the continent if he doesn’t stay for more than one season?” questioned Sugar.xi He
considered the prospect of signing foreign players too risky, as a foreigner might come to
England then decide that he did not care for the coffee or spaghetti. Sugar also singled out the
foreigners’ wives as picky and hard to please.xii
In 1996, Middlesbrough provoked controversy in the English press when the club
brought in numerous foreign players. Even more damning to the press was that Middlesbrough
also sold one of its best young English players, with the sturdy name of Jack Barmby, to make

5. room for and fund their foreign acquisitions. This move was seen as a betrayal of “English
values.” The press attacked Middlesbrough’s manager Brian Robson, who was himself a once-
great English international player. Journalists accused him of lacking faith in the virtues of
English players and lamented that Robson wanted to “build an entire team on alien strengths.”xiii
When Barmby was pushed out and Middlesbrough’s foreign stars wanted to leave, PFA chief
executive Gordon Taylor leapt at the opportunity to say “I told you so.” While he admitted that
foreign players had made a significant contribution to the Premier League, he attacked them as
“here today, gone tomorrow mercenaries.” He also attacked foreign players for not adapting to
the English culture, particularly South American players.xiv
The controversy was even bigger when the famous London team, Chelsea, assembled a
team with so many foreign players that it was known as the “Foreign Legion.” Once again,
people used stereotypes. Critics attacked Chelsea as “a team of Fancy Dan, money-grabbing
foreigners.” Not only did these critics think that the Chelsea players were greedy, they also
implied that the players were lesser for not being truly English. Fancy Dan means “one given to
flamboyant display especially of technique or dress,” according to the Merriam-Webster Online
dictionary. Any troubles that Chelsea’s “Foreign Legion” had on the field were attributed to their
lack of true, sturdy Englishness. Chelsea’s manager, himself a foreigner, responded by saying “It
seems you want to be part of Europe in this country, but not football.” He noted that the English
seemed to be giving vent to lingering nationalism in sports as their nation gave up some of its
authority by joining the EEU. He suggested that it would be absurd that football would be the
exception in English life.xv
Along with the charge that foreign footballers were flashy and greedy, there also claims
that they were not really loyal to their new teams and were not culturally willing to accept
England and Englishmen. Pundit Jeff Stelling noted that several foreign footballers had failed to
adapt to the “working class English game.” The foreign footballers were not from England and
could thus not be immediately loyal to their new English clubs. But Stellilng at least admitted
that the English should take some of the blame for the situation. He suggested that “there is a
cultural divide here but…the failure to bridge it lies less with the alien footballer and more with
the blinkered mentality of English football.xvi Even the legendary Brazilian footballer Pele
argued that greedy foreign players lacked loyalty.xvii Other critics went even further and implied
that foreign players, unlike their committed English teammates, were content with losing. Jeff

6. Powell stated that “the foreign legionnaires may genuinely believe that they are giving it a go.
But there is a difference between trying for your money and offering whole-hearted commitment
for your club in the old English way.”xviii Similarly, it was suggested that foreign players were
not tough enough and supposedly prone to diving.xix
V. Shift of Debate from criticizing foreigners to arguing they would destroy development of
English players
There was plenty of criticism leveled at the foreign footballers flooding into the English
Premier League. But there was soon backlash against the critique of foreign players and the
negative stereotyping of their more foreign qualities. Such criticism was labeled racist and
dismissed by many English people.xx So, opposition to foreign players had to be put on narrower
ground. The criticism now highlight the argument that foreign footballers were restricting the
development of young English players and therefore weakening the English game.xxixxiixxiii By
buying foreign players instead of fostering local English talent, Premier League teams were
harming England’s international chances in the long run. Some officials and journalists
expressed such an opinion or a slight variant. Most of them now freely admitted that the top
foreign players and stars made positive contributions to the league and had something to bring to
English football.xxiv The argument became that inexpensive foreign imports of lesser,
journeyman players would stunt the development of young Englishmen. Prominent English
players such as Steve McManaman and Tim Sherwood both voiced such concerns.xxv
McManaman agreed that the best foreign players “have done well this season and it can only be
good for the English game to have players like [them],” but he worried that the ‘rush of cheap
imports” would deny younger players the chances they needed.xxvi Former England manager
Glenn Hoddle claimed that “buying average foreign players is the problem. No-one has the
slightest objection to the best foreign stars coming to this country.”xxvii PFA Chief Executive
Gordon Taylor shifted his criticism of foreign players along these lines as well. Now he agreed
that top players could and did have a positive impact on the league. But Taylor cautioned that the
England national team would severely decline in quality if lower quality foreign players

7. continued to be brought in. He also criticized the flow of money going to agents and leaving
England through transfer fees to foreign teams.xxviii
There was a strong rejection, however, of the argument that foreign players weakened the
development of young English players and damaged the strength or quality of the English game
in general. Many fans and some in the game thought that the blame lay more with the English
players. These writers and officials felt that English players lagged behind foreigners and would
benefit from them. Responding to Steve McManaman’s concerns about foreigners damaging
English players’ development, Mr. Paul Hodson wrote in a letter to the Times that “British
players should take far more of the blame than McManaman wants to attribute to them.” Hodson
also felt that the foreigners could help bring the England players and playstyle up to snuff, saying
that the foreign stars “have not only improved the quality of our national sides, but more is being
learned from them than can be learned from the established coaches in the game, who are, at
best, reluctant to change a style that has proved a complete failure.”xxix This indicates that the
acceptance of foreign players was partly due to recognition by the English that their players and
approach to the game were not good enough anymore.
There was also a sense that the foreign footballers were more professional about their
jobs than were the English players. That is what Chelsea coach Ruud Gillit suggested, saying
that he had to push his domestic players harder about practicing. “The foreign players stay
outside,” explained Gillit. “They realise it is not over when I say stop…You have to be
professional. That is hard for the British players to understand.”xxx The influence of foreign
players was seen to help English football stay current by incorporating influences from the other
leagues in Europe.xxxi Many people, particularly within the game, thought that the foreign players
actually helped rather than hurt the development of younger English players by serving as
models for training. Middlesbrough manager Bryan Robson thought as much, saying that "It's
good for young players. They see how good the foreigners' first touch is, how good they are at
passing with both feet, and how hard they work to get fit. It all rubs off."xxxii There was a general
sense that the foreign players were better-conditioned and took better care of themselves. They
tended to drink less alcohol than their English counterparts.xxxiii
While debate went back and forth about the advantages and disadvantages of foreign
players, another argument appeared about English football’s new openness to the rest of the
world. This one had more to do with changes inside Britain itself.

8. In May 2000, the final game at England’s old national stadium Wembley took place. It
was the 2000 FA Cup Final between Chelsea and Aston Villa. The game was filled with
symbolism for many Englishmen, as it pitted a Chelsea team filled with foreigners dubbed
“Gianni-Come-Latelys” and a very English working-class Aston Villa. Chelsea’s team of
expensive foreigners with a foreign, sophisticated manager were perceived as symbols of the
new globalizing, multi-national trend in English football. Aston Villa, mainly comprised of
English players with an old-school English manager, represented the traditional English past of
the game. Villa hailed from the old industrial center of Birmingham, while Chelsea were based
in the rapidly globalizing capital city of London.xxxiv The dialogue surrounding this game
strongly suggested the idea that the debate about foreigners took place in the broader context of
changes to English society in the post-Thatcher and EEU years.
There were signs to be seen regarding the decline of the working class in England within
this debate about foreigners in English football. Those involved in the game gave many hints of
class resentment after Thatcher’s assault on the unions in the 1970s. There was nostalgia for the
1960s “when…British football was still a game played by, and for, the working class.” There
was a sense that while there were some excellent foreign players, too many were in the Premier
League because they were cheaper than British players. It suggested thoughts of class
antagonism—that the age of Thatcher and the EEU was opening up Britain to foreign
competition in the name of free markets and at the cost of British workers.xxxv
As late as 2011, manager Sam Allardyce linked Thatcher conservatism to change in
football by arguing that her policies gave English working-class youth less chance to develop
athletically. “Thatcher killed football,” declared Allardyce. Under her leadership, the national
government severely cut funding for afterschool programs and athletics, thus denying potential
English footballers the general athletic prowess they required and the opportunities on the ball
that were crucial to the development of a professional player. Allardyce insisted that football had
been a working man’s game, but Thatcher’s policies increasingly made football the province of
private schools. The Thatcher cuts forced clubs to start taking in younger and younger boys to
give them the training they required to become top players, but they could not make up for the
lost physical development of the working class. It is interesting that Allardyce did not directly
blame foreign players or even the European Court of Justice for the decreasing place of the
English in the “English game.” Instead, he traced the problem back to powerful people in Britain

9. itself. If English players weren’t actually that good and could benefit from the example of
European players, that was the fault of Margaret Thatcher and her rich supporters.xxxvi
With the post-Sky Sports deal and post-Bosman world of the Premier League, there was
an increasing sense among the English that their football had come to be dominated by the
modern economic forces of globalization. “Modern teams are no longer dependent on place or
nationality,” wrote Ben Webb. “This is corporate football.” Gone was the intense connection
with local pride.xxxvii Signs of globalization were increasing, while there was a marked decrease
of nationalism, which benefited corporations with their international reach. The old-school, hard-
working, hard-tackling English player was seen as an increasingly rare breed, while the number
of foreign players in the Premier League continued to soar. In order to stay popular and get their
share of the increasing profits in global football, the top teams needed to buy the best foreign
stars available. Critics increasingly voiced their concerns that the “English game” was losing its
character.
But the past nationalism in the top flight of the English league was exaggerated. As
journalists pointed out, the teams were not nearly as exclusively English as many had claimed.
The greatest club sides in the post-World War II era were certainly not entirely English or close
to it. Those clubs fielded and depended upon many players from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.
Those players were just as eligible to represent England at the international level as a player from
elsewhere in Europe or South America. Despite these players’ lack of English identity, there was
nowhere near the same level of debate or protestation of any negative influence on English
football.xxxviii
The changes in the Premier League, including the influx of foreign stars, were not simply
imposed on fans by the corporate, globalized nature of English football. Indeed, these changes
largely reflected the interests of the fans as well. Simply put, the English fans wanted to win.
They wanted their clubs to be successful even more than they wanted their national team to be
successful. They wanted to watch the best possible players as well. They didn’t want to have
foreign player quotas forcing average or worse English players forced on them.xxxixxl
The actual sentiment of the fans was surprisingly powerful. Many fans actually preferred
their English football with foreign players. When a Sun journalist criticized the number of
foreign players on Chelsea in 1999, the tabloid invited readers to respond.xli Some responses did
share the Sun journalist’s views. The most common complaint regarding Chelsea’s transfer

10. policy was the familiar reasoning that it harmed England’s international prospects. Even more
responses backed Chelsea’s usage of foreigners. One fan urged his fellow Englishmen to give up
on their unearned arrogance and learn from the foreign players. A fellow responder thought that
limiting English teams to English players to save the English game would be akin to throwing
foreign masterpieces out of the National Gallery to save British art. Another response said that
that the English game was tired and old fashioned and needed the skillful, exciting foreigners.
Yet another fan said that she paid a good deal for her season ticket and that she would rather
watch a team of foreigners win than watch a team of Englishmen lose. These fans wanted
success and exciting football.xlii
VII. Impact of debate?
1. No limits on foreign players.
2. Detail on numbers
The argument that corporate interests, all-powerful in the age of Thatcher, the EEU, and
globalization, completely dictated the influx of foreigner footballers is not born out by the
evidence. In the new circumstances of Bosman and the television money, it was both the richest
corporations (big Premier League teams) and the fans generally who won out. The rich Premier
League teams did not force unwilling supporters to accept foreign imports. There was a
surprising acceptance of the foreigners partly from an awareness of their ability and of the
weaknesses of English players. Although overt xenophobia and racism seemed to decrease, the
popular acceptance of foreign players was not necessarily a triumph of tolerance and global
values. And it wasn’t necessarily a rejection of nationalism: there was still popular support for
the national team in international competition. Instead, the fans seemed to act on a kind of self-
interest: they wanted to win. So, if foreign players were good enough, they should be able to play
and help the home team win. So the debate over foreign footballers after the Bosman ruling was
both a corporate and a popular triumph. Some players foreign and English made more money
than ever. But away from the television cameras at the big grounds of the Premier League,
maybe the lads of Sam Allardyce’s working class were quietly losing out.

11. i Nick Harris,England, Their England: The Definitive Story of Foreign Footballers n the English Game
Since 1888 (East Sussex: Pitch Publishing,2003), pp. 1-186
ii “They're doing us good!,” Jeff Powell, The Daily Mail, September 01, 1978;pg. 30-31;Issue 25578
iii “The open door,” Graham Nickless, Daily Mail, December 16, 1995; Issue 30952
iv “Shackles off theforeign legion,” Neil Harman, Daily Mail , December 23, 1995; pg. 68-69;Issue 30958.
v “Football `threatened' by imported players,” The Sunday Times, Tony Moss, February 4, 1990
vi “FREE ... to kill off football? Bosman's in theright but thecure could be worsethan the disease,” Brian
Glanville, The People, June 25, 1995
vii “Anxious clubs need not fear Bosman report,” The Times, Rob Hughes, September 21, 1995
viii “Future bleak if this is the new name of the game,” Vic Robbie, Daily Mail, February 02, 1996;pg. 75;
Issue 30992.
ix Ibid
x “Taylor alarmed by spate of foreign signings,” Peter Ball, The Times, July 6, 1996
xi “Moaning Klinny left us in Lumber Sugar: I won't buy a Jurgen next time,” Brian Woolnough, The Sun,
October 11, 1996
xii “THEY'LL KLIN US OUT! Sugar's amazing attackon soccer's Foreign Legion,” Harry Harris, The Daily
Mirror, November 15, 1996
xiii “Robson's foreign policy shifts to stronger defence,” Rob Hughes, The Times, November 2, 1996
xiv “HERE TODAY... GONE TOMORROW GORDON TAYLOR: Why it's gone wrong,” Harry Harris, The
Daily Mirror, November 13, 1996
xv “Ruud rap for critics Football,” Brian Woolnough, The Sun, December 21, 1996
xvi “Enjoy the show,it may not last long,” Jeff Powell, The Daily Mail, November 19, 1996;pg. 61; Issue
31241
xvii “Foreign mercenaries toblame for the national lack of talent,says Pele,” John Greechan, The Daily Mail,
November 19, 1999; pg. 94-95;Issue 32174
xviii “Hiding theBlues,” Jeff Powell, The Daily Mail, December 08, 2000;pg. 90; Issue 32501.
xix “Drive the divers out of the game,” Steve Curry, The Daily Mail, December 28, 2001; pg. 92-93;Issue
32829.
xx “Do imports hurt our game?,” Joe Lovejoy, The Sunday Times (London, England) December 29, 1996
xxi ibid
xxii “Football: Wilkinson fears victims of the import overload,” Norman Fox, The Independent on Sunday,
July 13, 1997
xxiii “Professor Wenger must not be blinded by English weakness,” Jeff Powell, The Daily Mail, October 23,
1998;pg. 79; Issue 31840
xxiv “Players of today whofill me with disgust,” Sir Stanley Matthews, The Daily Mail, March 3, 2000;pg.
66; Issue 32262.
xxv “There are too many foreigners over here,” Dave Kidd, The Sun, October 28, 2000
xxvi “Cutprice imports threaten disaster for domestic game, On the negative side of overseas trade,” Steve
McManaman, The Times, September 23, 1996
xxvii “I warned that cheap imports would ruin our game,” Harry Harris, The Daily Mirror, September 21,
1999
xxviii “Football : My plan to stop foreign legion killing our game ,'' Gordon Taylor, The Sunday Mirror,
August 22, 1999
xxix “Foreign influence for good -- Sports Letter,” Paul Hodson, The Times, September 30, 1996
xxx “Hidden dangers of foreign policy,” Nick Harris, The Independent, August 2, 1997

12. xxxi “Stop panicking!,” Jeff Powell, Daily Mail, March 1, 1988; Issue 28517
xxxii “The foreign legion,” Ben Webb, The Times, August 29, 1998
xxxiii “Wake-up call for a game still battlingthebottle,” Ian Ladyman, The Daily Mail, September 25, 2001;
pg. 77; Issue 32749
xxxiv “Working men of Villa can beat Gianni-come-latelys,”Jeff Powell, The Daily Mail, May 20, 2000;pg.
92-93;Issue 32329
xxxv “Do imports hurt our game?,” Joe Lovejoy, The Sunday Times (London, England) December 29, 1996
xxxvi “No fields + no sport =fat kids, WEST HAM BOSS ON COUNTRY'S OWN GOAL,” Sam Allardyce,
The Sun, July 9, 2011
xxxvii “The foreign legion,” Ben Webb, The Times, August 29, 1998
xxxviii “How overseas stars enhancethe health of English football,” Jeff Randall, The Sunday Times, January
5, 1997
xxxix Ibid
xl “The foreign legion,” Ben Webb, The Times, August 29, 1998
xli “Spot the Brit is a national disaster Football,”John Sadler, The Sun, September 17, 1999
xlii “You haveyour say,” The Sun, September 18, 1999