Every so often Sepp Blatter, like most politicians, likes to engage in a spot of demagoguery, throwing out a proposal that, however ill-advised or unworkable, is meant to curry favour with the masses. In this case, the Fifa president announced on Thursday that he would work to introduce a law limiting the foreign players allowed in a club’s starting XI to five.

It’s a silly proposal and an unworkable one, at least within the European Union, whose labour laws are quite clear on this matter. Uefa’s plan - having a minimum number of home-grown or domestic players in the Champions League – is much more realistic legally, though even that is under threat from Brussels.

Even if it were a viable option, here are eight reasons why Batter’s proposal would be a bad idea, practically and ethically.

1. Blatter says it would preserve a club’s identity. Well, since time immemorial, the identity of a football club has come from its supporters, not its players. Put another way, Newcastle United are from the North East. Under Blatter’s proposal, they could have a team of cockneys and that would be OK, that would preserve the club’s Geordie ethos. But a Scot? No, that would be a foreigner, despite the fact that the border is just a short drive away. If you’re serious about local identity, go all the way. Force Arsenal to field six men from within the M25, Barcelona six Catalans, Lazio six Romans and so on. That would make teams a reflection of where they are from. Of course, it would also severely penalise clubs in rural areas and smaller cities.

2. The Fifa president also says that it would help the development of youth players. There is zero empirical evidence that reducing the number of foreigners helps to produce talented footballers. On the contrary. Italy and France reached the most recent World Cup final. Most of the players in their squads made their professional debuts between 1996 and 2001, at the height of the “Bosman effect”, when roughly half the players in Serie A and Ligue 1 were foreign.

3. Such a rule would instantly cripple Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland, all of whom rely, to varying extents, on players who are English but qualify through their lineage. A young player with a Welsh grandparent might opt to play for Wales so he can have an international career. But if doing so would limit his chances of playing in the Barclays Premier League (which is what would happen if Blatter’s rule were implemented), he would think twice.

4.Fewer players would go abroad and more would stay home. That’s a good thing, right? No, it is not. Because most likely they would simply stay at the big clubs in their own countries. And, while it might make the top teams in the Netherlands, Portugal and other “exporting” countries more competitive, it would also maintain, if not increase, the gap between rich and poor domestically.

5. It would make it nearly impossible for the Continent’s nouveau riche to subvert the traditional order. Shakhtar Donetsk are top of their Champions League group. Nine of their starting XI are foreign. If you took away four of those guys and replaced them with Ukrainians, would they still be top? Is it fair to penalise them or the other East Europeans whose recent inroads in the Champions League are largely based on the ability to scout and pay for foreign talent?

6.Countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Nigeria thrive on exporting players. Is it fair to deny them the right to export one of their most prized commodities? Particularly since, at the same time, we in Western Europe are so eager to force them to open their markets so that we can peddle our own products.

7. Blatter argues that this would help to lower costs for clubs since they “wouldn’t have to spend astronomical sums to buy a player”. The opposite would happen. Clubs in the bigger leagues would still have to pay huge sums, it is just that they would spend them on domestic players, whose cost would sky-rocket. Not to mention the fact that many clubs outside the big three leagues survive by selling their players abroad every season. Their market would be severely restricted.

8.Centuries of economic history have shown that trade barriers do not work. All that happens is that prices for domestic goods increase and the quality of those goods decreases. If the rule were introduced tomorrow in the Premier League, not only would the cost of English players increase dramatically, those English players probably would not get any better as they would be facing inferior competition week in, week out.

Holy orders for Ancona

An Italian sports club affiliated to the Roman Catholic church’s Council of Bishops has taken over the running of Ancona, the financially struggling side who play in Italy’s third division. The idea, the new owners say, is to introduce an ethical dimension into the game – players will have to sign up to a code of conduct and all sorts of family and sportsmanship-orientated initiatives are planned. Just a publicity stunt? Possibly, but at least some good might come of it.

Elevated ambitions

Who said promoted clubs ought to be happy just with staying up? Karlsruhe SC at present lie second in the Bundesliga and have already chalked up some impressive scalps this season, including Schalke 04 and VfB Stuttgart, the defending champions.

Can they achieve the unthinkable and win the title in their first season back in the top flight? Probably not. But it’s interesting to note that the last time it happened in a leading league, in 1997-98, it occurred in Germany, when 1FC Kaiserslautern did it.

gabriele.marcotti@thetimes.co.uk