Champions League: An-All English Final?

Salaar Shamsi looks at why the European Cup Final might not be an all-English affair after all?

301 reads

May 01, 2008

Currently UnEdited

This article has not been edited yet.

World Football, EPL, Chelsea, Manchester United, Editorial, Editorial

Manchester United vs Chelsea in Moscow, it's an all-English final but to enforce a point made by Michel Platini and Sepp Blatter, it really can't be called an all-English final because not even half the players on the pitch will be from England.

Looking at Manchester United:

Edwin Van der Sar—Netherlands

Nemanja Vidic—Serbia

Patrice Evra—France

Anderson—Brazil

Cristiano Ronaldo—Portugal

Nani—Portugal

Carlos Tevez—Argentina

Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand,Paul Scholes,Wes Brown, Michael Carrick and Owen Hargreaves are the only English players in the team. However, Ryan Giggs(Wales) and Darren Fletcher (Scotland) could be called "British" players.

Chelsea have foreign players in abundance:

Petr Cech—Czech Republic

Paulo Ferreira—Portugal

Alex—Brazil

Ricardo Carvalho—Portugal

Michael Essien—Ghana

John Obi Mikel—Nigeria

Claude Makelele—France

Michael Ballack—Germany

Florent Malouda—France

Didier Drogba and Salomon Kalou—Ivory Coast

Nicolas Anelka—France

Andriy Shevchenko—Ukraine

Frank Lampard, Joe Cole, Ashley Cole and John Terry appear to be the only Englishmen from the possible starters.

Looking at this, do you think the number of foreign players in a club should be reduced, restricted or limited in any way?

However, both teams are after all from England.

Want to write for Bleacher Report? We are a community of fans who write about sports. And we're growing. Click here to learn more.

comments (16) write a comment »

reply to comment by Andrew
2 months ago

Good Point Salaar I think it would help the england team if foreigners were restricted but wouldnt help the teams or the EPL.
reply to comment by Matt
2 months ago

What about Scholesy?! He got us there after all... :)
reply to comment by Matt
2 months ago

Also the "all-Italian" final in 2003 only had 11 Italians on the pitch (ie half) between the two teams and this year's should have around 9 or 10 English players so not much difference. And we all know who won the World Cup in 2006...!
reply to comment by S
2 months ago

Well written good point.
reply to comment by S
2 months ago

Worth mentioning that both clubs are AMERICAN owned with U.S. and Korean sponsors.
Nothing English about them at all actually....apart from the odd player or two.
1. by Salaar
  from 2 months ago
  
  Roman Abrahamovic is Russian..Bruce Buck(American is the chairman)
  
  Thanks guys!
2. by S
  from 2 months ago
  
  Russian ,American....anything but English.
reply to comment by Salomon
2 months ago

So what? United are located in Manchester and Chelsea are located in London. In other words, they represent England.

This article is indirectly leading onto another subject, which the issue of "blaming foreigners for the national teams failure"....

Well written though as always Salaar..
1. by S
  from 2 months ago
  
  This article also raises the whole question of globalization.........there is a Samsung factory located not far from where I live ...does that make them a Brazilian company?
2. by Salomon
  from 2 months ago
  
  I didnt understand that comment. Whats it got to do with football?
3. by S
  from 2 months ago
  
  Well you said that the English clubs are English only because they are located in England.
  Does that mean any company located in my country is Brazilian?
reply to comment by Salaar
2 months ago

Thanks Salomon
reply to comment by Simon
2 months ago

Also there was 9 'foreigners' in the starting line ups of the all Spanish final in 2000 between Real Madrid and Valencia, so its hardly a new phenomena.
1. by S
  from 2 months ago
  
  Hardly a new phenomena ....in Europe.
  and maybe the US.
reply to comment by Salomon
2 months ago

oh yeah, i get it now. But still, when a company is founded in England by English people, then it doesn't matter where that company sets up a branch. It always remains an English company...
Football clubs like Manchester United/City, Chelsea and Liverpool were founded In England by English people, so just because they are now owned by Americans, Russians or whatever else, they remain "English" clubs.....
The location point was meant to point out the fact that United was founded In England and have remained situated in England, Manchester. So i dont see how they all of a sudden become an "American" club, just because they are now owned by Americans...
1. by S
  from 2 months ago
  
  Right. So now it`s not about location. It`s a company founded by a certain nationality remains under that nationality even if sold to another nationality. Got ya...makes sense. It`s all about who founded the thing never mind who owns it.
  And I talk shit.