After watching todays FA match between Chelsea and Man city (Grear match BTW) i noticed chelsea had about only one english player on the pitch. Are there any regulations on how many foreign players you can play? I 

I dont think it would work. UEFA used to have a similar rule in the 90's but it was struck down by the European Court of Justice. Its called the Bosman ruling.

"Pre-Bosman, clubs were limited in the number of foreign players they could sign.

In European competitions, Uefa regulations decreed that clubs could field only three foreign players plus two "assimilated" players who had come through their youth set-up.

Post-Bosman, clubs could sign any number of players from European Union countries.

That made possible the phenomenon of clubs fielding teams without a single player from that country.

Without the Bosman ruling, Chelsea and Arsenal could never have fielded teams without a single British player, as both have famously done."

then spain has too many Argentinians...

4

no way epl has too many

@Keisuke
"A little poetic for you."? ROFL. That made my day dude.

Back to the point. Like Alex said, there shouldn't be any discrimination towards "foreigners". Stupid to say that.

You're welcome ;)

I think it's the price a nation pays for having such a competitive, lucrative league. Make no mistake, the Premier League's rise to dominance over the last decade or so has been rooted in the attraction of young, foreign talent in the first place.

United's early prominence was predicated on the quality of a Frenchman. Arsenal's rise to power was based upon Wenger's cherry-picking of talent from the French and Dutch leagues. Chelsea's own climb to power was largely thanks to the multi-national team put together by Ranieri and Mourinho. And now City have gotten in on the act.

It's the reason these clubs enjoyed their success at all.

And, really, how different is this from the days of AC Milan being characterized by Shevchenko, Crespo, Kaka, Seedorf, Cafu as much as Maldini and Gattuso? Or a decade before, when it was Gullit, Rijkaard and Van Basten? What about the Inter team made up of Eto'o, Milito, Sneijder, Muntari, Samuel, Lucio, Cesar? Or a decade before, when it was Ronaldo, Zanetti Seedorf and Veron? How about Juventus and their reliance upon players like Davids, Zidane, Platini, Nedved, etc?

The big difference was, like FredTilson pointed out, that before the Bosman ruling, this influence was limited, and so the Italian league also produced a pretty fantastic Italian national team playing at the same level (WC winners in 1982, 3rd in 1990, 2nd in 1994). post-Bosman, it all went downhill as teams became packed with foreign stars. Sure Italy won the WC in 2006, but mainly through diving (I won't apologize for saying so), but for the 12 years between 94 and 2006, Italy were pretty much nobody.

Which is funny, because England were 4th in 1990, 3rd in Euro 1996 and the best team Brazil played against in 2002, all before the influx of overwhelmingly foreign squads.

Yes, it's true: if the English league had fewer foreigners, then England would probably have fared better internationally, but then it also wouldn't have had the strongest league in the world. It's a toss-up, it seems, although the fact that a new generation of Italian players seem on the verge of greatness once more, there may be hope for England in a couple of tournaments' time, too.