Jump to content

Talk:6+5 rule

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EC response to the ruling

[edit]

They say it's illegal: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/news/2008/may/fifa_en.pdf , precedent: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bosman_ruling. BUT: EC acknowledged that the ruling is somewhat good. Please add this also. I'm not that good editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.240.184 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section (amongst others)

[edit]

Needs citations otherwise it's just opinion... db1987db (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Criticism section was all just opinion (and very badly written too), I've deleted it now. MTC (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gap leagues

[edit]

Question what about Cardiff city, would they have to field 6 Welsh players or 6 English players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.52.10 (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before 1996, an English club was able to field unlimited number of footballers from other member-states of United Kingdom and also from Republic of Ireland and propably also from other Commonwealth countries, meanwhile they had to put only 3 footballers from other countries on the stadium. --82.139.43.130 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dual nationality

[edit]

Has there been a clarification on the ruling as it pertains to players of dual nationality. If Andy McDonald is born in England to Scottish parents, he would be eligible for either national team. If he plays one week for a side in the English Premiership, as one of its six Englishmen, and then is capped for Scotland, are his team prohibited from fielding the same starting XI on their next match?

If anyone has definitive information on this type of scenario, it would be good to have clarification in the article. Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background Section

[edit]

It is not encyclopaedic to simply make pronouncements like "The foundations of football are harmony and balance between national team football and club football." or "The universal development of football over the last century would not continue if there were increasing inequalities between continents, countries and protagonists in football." If these are the published opinions of an appropriate authority (and the language suggests some bureaucratic origin) that should be cited. If not, it is a set of unsupported opinions, and should be deleted. Kevin McE (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the source which makes the bulk of this page look like a WP:copyvio. Kevin McE (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited article to reflect that much is a quote from FIFa--Tim P (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INEA Observations

[edit]

The exact significance of the INEA observation is not clear. They are an independent think tank commissioned by FIFA to examine the legality of the 6+5 rule. One would not expect them to present something less than in line with FIFA proposals. However, that's beside the point. The question is does INEA have any legal or diplomatic standing with the European commission? The legal standing of this observation vis-a-vis the EC must be clarified here as on first glance it would seem that there is an official "in principle" acceptance of the FIFA 6+5 rule by the European commission. --Mayfair void (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

[edit]

Please speed delete this article, the 6+5 plan was scrapped by FIFA, see [1]

Notability is not temporary. If it was ever worth an article, then the article remains. Kevin McE (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, if it truly has been scrapped, then the article should be amended to reflect this. As the article stands now, it sounds as if it still is on the table. Wschart (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article to reflect this and added the BBC link -- Deville (Talk) 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 6+5 rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 6+5 rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 6+5 rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:6%2B5_rule&oldid=1197072373"