Chelsea: Exceptions to FIFA loan rules will cover most Blue loanees

FIFA will likely institute new rules limiting the number of players a team can have on loan, subject to a few exceptions. Those exceptions will allow Chelsea to maintain a sturdy loan army and not punish the club for having an excellent academy.

FIFA are going ahead with their plan to restrict the number of players a club has on loan, since this is obviously the most pressing issue in global football governance right now. The Premier League is pushing FIFA to adopt a few provisions to the rules, which would protect Chelsea’s investment in their youth academy.

The key exceptions are unlimited loans for club- or association-trained players, unlimited domestic loans and the restrictions not applying to players under 21 or 23. Any combination of these will cover most of Chelsea’s prized youngsters.

Chelsea only recently began buying and loaning experienced players in their mid-20’s. For the most part, if Chelsea sends a player in his mid-20s out on loan, it’s because they bought him with no real purpose. As I wrote in August, Tiemoue Bakayoko, Michy Batshuayi and Kurt Zouma are worrying exceptions to the general trend. These three had significant first team playing time at Chelsea before going out on loan.

Bakayoko, Batshuayi and Zouma would be three of the main decisions the Blues would have to make. Matt Miazga would be another. None are club- or association-trained, and all are old enough to count against the quota. Zouma is at least on loan domestically, for now. Each would take up a soon-to-be valuable spot in the loan army. Chelsea would have to assess their prospects for the first team and how much their transfer value may increase by another year on loan.

Most of the other players who would not be covered by these exceptions are those who have no chance of playing at Stamford Bridge, are forgotten by most people and are the players who give the loan army such a bad reputation. Among this crowd are Kenneth Omeruo, Victorien Angban, Baba Rahman and one-time third-string goalkeeper, Eduardo.

The players who carry the hopeful idealism of the loan army – the ones who carry some level of “the next John Terry” with them – would be untouched by FIFA. Mason Mount, Tammy Abraham, Ola Aina, Fikayo Tomori, Lewis Baker, Isaiah Brown… Most of them are also on loan in England this season, making them doubly safe.

The loan rules, then, could leave Chelsea with over a dozen graduates of the Cobham academy on  loan across Europe. This is an important exception, as it allows clubs to reap the benefits of their investment in youth and keep alive the possibility of bringing their youth into the first team. Without it, teams would be forced to make premature decisions about players they have raised from youth. They would compensate by including onerous buy-back and sell-on clauses in their transfer contracts, circumventing the new regulations just as FIFA tries to clamp down on uses of the old system.

Chelsea would also benefit from their efforts in recent years to build better loan relationships in England. Frank Lampard and John Terry won’t always be at Derby County and Aston Villa (they’ll come home eventually). But their clubs could still be useful loan partners, as could many others the Blues have used in the last few seasons.

The Premier League’s lobbying for these exceptions is a commendable protection of their clubs’ interests, as well as clubs across the pyramid. As with many FIFA regulations, these new rules seem driven by FIFA more than any actual constituency. Everyone involved benefits from a loan – otherwise they wouldn’t do it. FIFA, like most governing bodies, think they know better.

As we’ve said before: there’s plenty not to like about Chelsea’s loan system, but FIFA’s rules do not address those problems, nor is it their place to do so.

Perhaps someday FIFA will take action on some of the other supposed loopholes clubs use to circumvent Financial Fair Play.

Nah, what am I saying? I’m just making things up now. There are no other loopholes. It’s 100% above-board and legit for a team to be partially owned by an ownership group that owns four other teams around the world, with the brother of the coach of their flagship team – in the same federation, mind you – as the co-owner.

Nope, nothing to see here, keep moving along, and don’t you dare think about accumulating loanees.