Brexit vote: What does it mean for sport?

So the votes are in. Britain’s status as a member of the European Union is now on borrowed time after the victory for Brexit campaign. But what could that mean for professional sport in the United Kingdom?

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union establishes the procedures for a member state to withdraw from the EU. Once that is invoked, Britain will have a two-year window in which to negotiate a new treaty to replace the terms of EU membership.

According to Paul Shapiro, an associate at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, that means the real effects could take some time to filter through, although he predicts a significant impact on various issues from the increased cost of transfers (West Ham’s €40m offer to buy Marseille’s Michy Batshuayi was worth £31m on Thursday but now already equates to more than £34m) to problems with work permits for players from EU countries.

“While the focus of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union is likely to be on the impact on the City and migration, the impact on the sports world could be significant,” said Shapiro.

“However, we will not know how significant this will be until we have a clearer idea of the terms the UK negotiates for its continued relationship with the EU. If the agreement with the EU includes broad free movement obligations, such as those currently in place with EEA members, the current position regarding the movement of players between the continent and the UK will most likely continue.

“If, instead, an agreement is reached which includes restrictions on the movement of persons and services, the impact on the sports world would be more significant. Firstly, English players may not be able to move to the continent freely and EU nationals could be subject to entry restrictions when seeking to play in England, if post- Brexit they are treated in the same way as current non-EU nationals.”

At the last count, there were more than 400 players plying their trade in the top two divisions in England and Scotland, with the vast majority unlikely to pass the stringent work permit requirements introduced by the Football Association in March 2015. Previously, in order to qualify to play in the UK, players needed to have played in at least 75per cent of their country’s senior international matches over the previous two years.

The new requirements state that non-EEA (European Economic Area) players will have to meet a minimum percentage of international matches played for their country over the previous 24 month period, as determined by that country’s Fifa world ranking – a model that is now likely to be extended to include players from EU countries as well. Freedom of movement, a principle central to the European project, has previously allowed players to earn a living in the UK without the need for a complicated work permit process.

“Leaving the EU will have a much bigger effect on football than people think,” football agent Rachel Anderson told the BBC in March.

“We’re talking about half of the Premier League needing work permits. The short-term impact would be huge but you could argue it will help in the long term as it could force clubs to concentrate on home-grown talent.”

Some supporters may not agree. Under the current rules, for example, Morgan Schneiderlin, Yohan Cabaye, Anthony Martial and N'Golo Kanté would no longer be eligible for a work permit having not featured in more than 45per cent of France's matches since June 2014.

Brexit could also spell the end of the influx of teenage players from the European Union, who were previously considered as “homegrown” players who, irrespective of his nationality or age, “has been registered with any club affiliated to the Football Association or the Football Association of Wales for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or 36 months prior to his 21st birthday”. Current Premier League rules state that clubs must include eight such players out of a squad of 25, with Chelsea’s Cesc Fàbregas among those whose status would change.

“British football clubs may find themselves only able to sign foreign players over the age of 18 as, outside the EU/ EEA, they would no longer be able to benefit from the exception under the current Fifa regulations given for transfers involving 16 and 17 year old footballers within the EU/EEA,” explained Shapiro.

“If EU law ceases to apply in the UK, the organisers of sports competitions may be able to more effectively restrict the number of foreign players that feature in matchday squads as they could potentially include EU nationals and Kolpak players within any foreign player quota. Some governing bodies may see this as advantageous in that it would allow them to discriminate in favour of the development of English qualified players to the potential advantage of the national team whereas it could be damaging to leagues/clubs who would be less competitive in their ability to attract the best players from across the continent.” ?

At present, there are estimated to be more than 70 cricketers employed by counties in England and Wales under the Kolpak agreement – named after a former Slovak handball goalkeeper who won his case against the German Handball Federation at European Court of Justice in 2003 to allow freedom of movement. As Stephen Vaughan, Gloucester’s chief executive, explained to the Guardian last month, the impact on rugby could be even more wide-reaching.

“If we were out of the EU, the Kolpak ruling would no longer apply here and we would have to lobby and explain how players could find themselves unemployed and how harder it would be for clubs to recruit players,” Vaughan said. “It is a great unknown that we are concerned about.”

(Guardian services)