The majority of people that would like to see some restriction in foreign players in their domestic leagues do so because they feel in hinders the development of domestic players and as a consequence the impacts their national side. These people want to see their national side do well because they support their national side and want them to do as well as possible.
England just went to the World Cup semis. Is that not doing well? What evidence is there that less foreign players equates to a better national team?
Italy’s decline has conincided with a spike in foreign players in their league. I think they’re second in Europe for % of foreign players making up their league now.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. Italian football's decline has also coincided with a shitty economy for last 20 years and loads of match fixing scandals (on of the biggest teams Juve was relegated for it). It's intellectually dishonest to link the spike in foreign players with its decline. Exactly what I mean by frivolous arguments.
Think of it logically, why would a larger talent pool reduce the quality of players in a said league? Perhaps I'm missing something but that doesn't make a lick of sense.
In England and Italy there are plenty of people that believe that limiting the number of foreign players would enable young domestic players to get their chance more often and thus make them more likely to fulfil their potential and augment the quality of their national sides.
As I told you before, it's not about what people think. It's about the ability to back up these claims. IMO these claims don't even pass the weakest bit of scrutiny yet the pop up again and again. Why do people want to hold on to a belief that's not based on reality and is never backed up with any facts?
If you think this is rooted in xenophobia rather people wanting the best for the team they support then fine but I think it’s a weak argument.
Thought experiment. If I'm explaining to someone why something doesn't make sense and this said person isn't providing any counter arguments, and just repeating the same belief, am I not justified to think they hold a dogmatic view?
You might find the arguments for this as frivolous but plenty of people don’t and I for one would be interested to see what would happen.
Again your points are very confusing to me. You are just stating what you THINK WILL happen if the number of foreigners are restricted further without any evidence as to why it would happen. In turn, I'm explaining and giving you evidence that there is NOTHING TO SUGGEST IT WILL, but you insist that it should be tried anyways, regardless of the reasoning or the unintended consequences.
Again, what do you expect me to think? At best, its a stubborn argument (not you, the argument), which IMO could be the result of xenophobia. It's just inductive reasoning and you shouldn't feel slighted or insulted.