The rules around loans are about to change. Recently,
FIFA announced that a reform process that began back in 2017
would lead to new regulations being introduced in time for the 2022-23 season.
But what are the changes,
why have they been introduced, and what effect are they likely to have?
So, the new rules first.
As of July 2022, the following will apply to all international loans,
with domestic associations expected to adopt the same regulations within three years.
First, there will be a new minimum loan period, defined as the interval between any two transfer
windows, and a new maximum, of a single calendar year. That means no more two-year loans.
In addition to which, a club may loan a maximum of three players from one club
at any one time, and the same applies in the reverse. They may only loan three players
from a single club at any one time. And FIFA is also imposing a ban on so-called sub-loaning,
which sees players on loan at one club being loaned to another.
But the real changes will be seen in a further measure, which will eventually limit the number
of total incoming and outgoing loans in any one season to six in either direction.
This will be a staggered change and will be gradually imposed over a three-year period.
In 2022-23, clubs will be allowed to bring eight players in and loan eight players out.
In 2023-24, that will drop to seven, and the following season it will fall to six.
That will initially apply to international loans only,
but domestic associations will be expected to adopt the same framework within three years.
There are also exemptions. Players who are 21 or under and are club-trained players – ie.
those who have spent a cumulative 36 months at the club between the ages of 15 and 21 – would
not count towards the total. But, importantly, only if they qualify under both categories.
For example, a 25 year-old homegrown player would still count against the total number
of loans allowed, as would a 20 year-old who doesn’t meet the homegrown criteria.
So, those are the technical points, but what is the motivation behind this change
and what are the resulting effects likely to be?
The aim is to curb player hoarding and in so doing encourage better development practices.
In plain English, that means demotivating affluent clubs from stockpiling players who have little to
no chance of representing their first team. By limiting the opportunity to construct sprawling
loan networks, the legislation increases the cost of keeping fringe and developing players
under contract, and theoretically promotes a more even spread of talent across the game.
But will this actually work?
Maybe.
No club is more associated with loan networks than Chelsea, so they’re an interesting test case.
At the moment, they have 21 players out on loan.
It was 22, but Kenedy was recently and unexpectedly recalled.
Many of those 21 would be exempt, including Conor Gallagher, Dujon Sterling and Armando Broja.
By the rules as they will be in 2025, though, Chelsea would still be some way over the limit.
Players like Danny Drinkwater, Tiemoue Bakayoko and Emerson would obviously count against the
total loans allowable, but so too would Jake Clarke-Salter, goalkeepers Nathan
Baxter and Jamie Cumming, and young left-back Juan Familia-Castillo, as all are over the age of 21.
In total, there are ten Chelsea players out on loan who aren’t protected by an exemption
and that number will need to fall.
It’s important to note that the perception of Chelsea’s loan army is quite outdated. It’s
nothing like as substantial as it was. Clubs have been expecting this change for some time and have
adjusted their strategy accordingly. Manchester City’s network is actually bigger than Chelsea’s.
They have a current tally of 12 players on loan who would not meet the criteria for exemption
and, in total, 34 professionals playing their football away from the Etihad this season.
And even that pales in comparison with some of the networks that have been growing abroad.
As of January 2022, for instance, Atalanta had a staggering 64 players out on loan.
Even accounting for the 39 players aged 21 or under who are exempt, that would still demand
a significant pivot in strategy when the rules changes. As it will for Inter Milan and Genoa,
with 48 and 38 players out on loan respectively, and Sassuolo who have 45.
But the effects of this change will be felt differently by different types of club.
Affluent sides who were previously happy to sign big budget players to fill out their squads,
will presumably be less keen to do so without the fall back of being able to
push that player – and his wages – out on loan once his usefulness expires.
Similarly, while new loan rules will do little to prevent the hoarding of youth players,
clubs will either have to play or sell their emerging talent, no longer safe in the
knowledge that they can send infinite players into perpetual loan orbit throughout their twenties.
From that perspective, the stated aim of these reforms is realistic:
it will no longer be quite as viable to stockpile talent, it will probably improve development
practices and, in certain cases and to varying degrees, it will even out the competitive balance.
The opportunity to be a feeder club will diminish, for instance, as it will no longer be quite so
easy to artificially elevate a league position with borrowed players from a single source.
But the loan market doesn’t just serve one aim or just a few elite clubs.
In the aftermath of the pandemic, teams have used it to protect themselves from devastating
losses in revenue. Historically, clubs have often been able to alleviate the cost of relegation
by sending devalued players out on loan when, without the full utility of the loan market,
they might have been forced into outright sales from weakened bargaining positions.
The new regulations won’t stop them from doing that, of course, but their limiting effects
are a consideration. So, it’s an improvement for the better and most likely a change that
promotes a healthier environment, but it might still come with a few hidden costs and caveats.