Taking a closer look at the academy system in London, the immediate and most recent dialogue that comes to mind centres on the impact of drafting in ‘foreign’ talent.

Some reports out of the UK have been really critical of the Liverpool academy failing to bring forward any talent over the last few years. Sure, Michael Owen and Steven Gerrard are two prime examples of talent that was developed through recruiting and training at the Anfield club, but two players out of a pool of how many?

When Gerard Houllier was managing the bench, his recruitment was both sparse and eccentric. Upon Rafa Benitez’s takeover as boss, most of the old buys were purged in favour of (primarily) Spanish-based talent that performed well, but drew wide criticism from non-Liverpool supporters.

To be fair, it is a little bit odd that those living in north London worship Frenchman Thierry Henry, or that Mancunian residents are staunch advocates of Portuguese international Cristiano Ronaldo. Where are the traditional British heroes?

Writers for the BBC quite often pick out things that they consider the key to a club’s success. Since the beginning of the debate over whether or not the Premiership was becoming too European, there were references to the inclusion of British players in a side that made it seem like success was dependent on ‘staying British.’ Pundits referred to the ‘British spine’ of several clubs, making it sound as if the glue that held the side together and propelled it to three-point hauls in nearly every game was the three or four British-born players in the side.

For Manchester United, it was the Wayne Rooney, Paul Scholes, Rio Ferdinand, Gary Neville tandem, supplemented by Ryan Giggs (though, to be fair, he’s Welsh), or even Alan Smith or Wes Brown. For Tottenham, it was the Jermaine Defoe, Michael Carrick, Ledley King grouping that was heralded as the ‘spine.’ Selling Carrick has proved to be a move that Spurs haven’t yet recovered from.

Criticism is levelled toward clubs like Arsenal, who, despite a great tradition of British players, have slowly adopted a far more cosmopolitan appearance in terms of the nationality of passports held by the players on the pitch. This, for a club who supplied the England squad with three or all of the starting back four for many years.

It is important to note that there is little favouritism within the ranks of the academies. Every player recruited, whether on scholarship, as a trainee, as a schoolboy, or as a reserve team member, is given the chance to appear for the club, to prove his worth, and then to seize his chance. At no point is Wenger sitting in his office pondering how to give his newly recruited African-born or French-born newcomers an advantage over those who were born a stone’s throw away.

The policy, which would likely be confirmed by the majority of managers in England, is one based on merit and achievement – make a name for yourself, give the club’s scouts and evaluators some impressive appearances, contribute to the success of some youth/academy competitions, and you may find yourself being called by the gaffer himself.

Why, then, are so many people hung up on the nationality? It could be due to England’s senior national team misfiring on so many fronts for so many years. Obviously a serious lack of success on the world and European stages has driven many to criticise the manager’s squad selection.

Frankly, if two players are recruited at the age of 11 to an academy, one from a village in Ghana, and one from a subsidiary village near Hartlepool, are both given equal opportunity at the academy, in the FA Youth Cup, and even a stint in a reserve squad, yet the African-born player ends up making more of an impact. Does anyone have the right to be upset?

This is a relevant discussion because it has bearing on transfer activity, the England national squad, and major selection decisions by managers all around Europe.

Should football academies concentrate more on local talent? Add your comment below or write an article giving your opinion.