Hello,

I'm opening a new subject concerning a rule on the number of players per club in the federation, and more specifically, the EXCEPTION made and described in the rules to avoid any abuse:

#community?rules

• A squad may only contain one player per club.
  EXCEPTION: Federations may select 3 players from the same club if, and only if, the club in question is 100% of a single nationality. The limit is always 5 players from the same club (including sister clubs). Example: A Federation that selects 3 players from the same club (100% of the same nationality) may only take 2 more players from other clubs belonging to the same agreement (including sister agreements).

This morning, myself (president and coach of the Croatian Federation) and Magik'jojo (president and coach of the Australian Federation) discovered (thanks to Socrate's supervision) that the game had allowed us to select up to 3 players from these respective clubs in the past (change in the coding of the 100% rule, modification of their squad with the purchase or promotion of young players outside the nationality of the initial squad, no idea why and why we can no longer add players now unlike before)
Blue Samurai [N-E] 19/31 Australians
Mick3829 •hVs• 20/26 Croatians

And this is where the problem arises with making a selection based on a percentage rather than relative figures. In a nutshell:
3/3 = 100%
31/32 = 96.875%
The current rules would therefore stipulate that we could select the 3 players from a club with only 3 players of the same nationality (same problem if 11/11 or 15/15), but that this would not be possible for a club with 31 players of the same nationality, which is absurd from a strictly logical point of view?

In comparison, the VFifa rules only require 11 players (15 recommended, 26 maximum) to take part in the competition (#forum?topic=166955).

My proposal is to ask whether it would not be preferable and/or feasible to scale the number of players selectable from a club according to the total number of players of that nationality in that club, i.e. (figures below are totally arbitrary):

• If 0 players => 0 selected
• If 1 to 11 players => 1 selected
• If 12 to 24 players => 2 selected
• If 25 to 32 players => 3 selected

Hello,

I agree with you and think that this rule is a bit stupid. Let's imagine that a nation can't select such and such a player because he belongs to the same club as another...

The French team would have to do without either Mbappé, Camavinga, Tchouameni or Mendy.

De Barcola, Kolo Muani, Zaire-Emery, Hernandez...

And so on for other nations such as Spain, Italy, England, etc.

As much as I could understand this point in the rules when naturalisations were taken into account by the federations, I find that it doesn't really make sense any more.

3/3 on the assumption that the manager only has 3 players?

Marcus Aurelius: 3/3 en partant du principe que le manager n'a que 3 joueurs ?

The 3/3 example is precisely the case of the minimum extreme value that allows the 100% algorithm to be passed to select 3 players. Absurd on paper, but possible for a team that decides to have only 3 players (the theory of the absurd by the absurd). As stated below, this is true for each ratio of 1/1 up to 30/30 (11/11 and 15/15 mentioned), which in the end will have 100% but in relative terms, these numbers (1 to 30) will be lower than 31, which nevertheless at 31/32 players because of the ratio lower than 100%, will only allow the selection of one player compared to the other scenarios allowing the selection of up to 3 players in the current rules.

I'm not disputing the limit on the number of players selected (that's another debate, see Aguado), but the mathematical thinking behind the limit.

Marcus Aurelius: 3/3 en partant du principe que le manager n'a que 3 joueurs ?

Why would a manager only have 3 players?
Selectable in federation thus one of best of its federation.

After on vf the first advantage of one or more players in federation is the money that it brings, that can lead to abuses, there are choices made by knowledge? Possible
Mais c'est vrai que 3joueurs par clubs serait pas de trop

There's no advantage to having just 3 players. You need a minimum of 11 for matches.

The absurd example is of little interest.

Yes, the one with 11/11 can have several and the 31/32 cannot. But what about?

Making a nation 100% is a choice with many disadvantages. Having a lot of players from one nation but not all of them is less restrictive.
Why should the person who imposes fewer constraints on himself and can also have other players in the federation have the same advantage (the only one, by the way) as the person who imposes all the constraints on himself?

It's a bit like having your cake and eating it too!

Hi, I read this topic and it struck a chord in my little heart as Somalia's new coach.

image](https://i.imgur.com/IgTXgvC.jpeg)

It's not possible to take the 3 youngsters with marks between 81 and 84 because they're all at the same club, which already has a player in the squad, instead of my glorious replacements. I should point out that all these glorious replacements are, of course, at their highest possible grade.

In any case, this rule could never be applied because it's technically impossible to select more than one player per club. I mentioned this to Aymeric, but to date I haven't heard back.
And then, when we say '100%', we shouldn't take it literally either. It just means that the vast majority of your players are from a single nation. If you have 30 players of one nationality and 2 of another, nobody would say anything to you if you took 3 players from that club.
But I repeat, for the moment this rule is obsolete because technically you can only select one player per club.

Marcus Aurelius: Il n’y a aucun avantage à n’avoir que 3 joueurs. Il en faut 11 minimum pour les matchs.

L’exemple absurde n’a pas grand intérêt.

Oui, celui qui a 11/11 peut en avoir plusieurs et pas le 31/32. Et ?

Faire une nation à 100% c’est un choix avec beaucoup d’inconvénients. Avoir beaucoup de joueurs d’une nation mais pas la totalité c’est moins contraignant.
Pourquoi celui qui s’impose moins de contraintes et peut à côté avoir d’autres joueurs en fédération devrait av

In fact, you totally demonstrate my thinking, because the absurd example is of no interest, but it can be achieved by the current rules and potentially the current scripting. (unless a minimum number N of players of the nationality are present or added to the club, in addition to a percentage of 100%). You think it's absurd to have only 3 players, but the bottom line is that the rules allow 3 players to be selected when 11/12 doesn't, for example.

In fact, I find it inconsistent that 11/11 can have several players selected and 31/32 cannot.
In one case, a player will only need 11 players (less strategic adaptability), the other 31 players (more expenditure involved in the federation project), i.e. a little less than 3 times more financial investment in this nationality for one, against a strategic penalty for the other. So, for me, your sentence "Why should the person who imposes fewer constraints on himself and can also have other players in the federation have the same advantage (the only one, by the way) as the person who imposes all the constraints on himself?" doesn't make any sense, it all depends on whether you're thinking in economic or strategic terms... depending on the case. But for example, someone with 25/25 players doesn't impose any fewer constraints on himself than someone with 31/32 tactically, whether in terms of bench space, tactical possibilities, and the limit will go from 3 to 1 having potentially spent more...

There's no thought to advantage some (very low reaction if that's an implication of the last sentence). Purely a mathematical and algorithmic reflection of the use of 100% versus relative value. And above all, it's very punitive for certain federations, especially with their sometimes limited pool of talent following the disappearance of certain federations a few seasons ago, which resulted in trainers of these nationalities abandoning the sport, an effect that is tactically penalising these federations at the moment.

Beyond what Morten said

Morten34: De toute façon, cette règle n'a jamais pu s'appliquer car il est impossible techniquement de sélectionner plus d'un joueur par club. Je l'avais indiqué à Aymeric, mais à ce jour je n'ai pas eu de retour à ce sujet.
Et puis bon, quand on dit "100%", il ne faut pas le prendre au pied de la lettre non plus. Cela indique juste que la grande majorité de vos joueurs sont d'une seule nation. Si vous avez 30 joueurs d'une même nationalité et 2 d'une autre, personne ne vous dirait rien si vous

That's partly not true. If you're wandering around in the coach's area while your federation is playing, you can select a player from a club for whom you already have someone selected.

To tell the truth, the vast majority of managers don't give a damn about the federations. The only positive point is that they receive a ticket in exchange for making a player available, without any impact for them: the player leaves during an off-peak hour, returns with his physique that hasn't moved, and with a suitcase full of tickets for the contribution.

There's even a selection race... When a player is for sale on the VFo, the Mini-chat or by PM, the seller specifies that this player is selected by his federation. It's a good selling point to sell a player who could potentially bring in €8 x X per season for his club. The more you have, the better, because you're loading up on money without doing anything.
When the MDJ touched (or maybe it was a bug, I don't know) the physical appearance of players returning from selection, it triggered a huge wave of complaints on the VFo. Yes, we want free money without doing anything, but then no, there's no question of having a constraint in front of us...

And now it's all the rage to contact the presidents or selectors of mediocre-level federations and tell them: I've got an Italian NG 90 player, he's too weak to play in Italy, but he'll be the best player in your selection. I'll naturalise him and in exchange you take him on to play 8 games a season.
I've received several PMs like that (I'm president of the Philippines national team) and I think that trading stars for in-game money is forbidden by the rules, so we're getting very close in this case, aren't we?

What's more, I propose that naturalized players should be banned from selection by the federations. Note to DJMs: there could even be a small note on the player's sheet to indicate that he's changed nationality, in the same way as the stars that appear next to the names of special players. And above all, it would limit this race for federations... for money, which has gone on long enough.

We're straying from the original subject, but it has to do with federations. I'll open another topic if some people share this opinion, so as not to mix everything up.

Nicularo: A vrai dire, la grande majorité des managers se moquent pas mal des fédérations. Le seul point positif c'est de recevoir un billet en échange de la mise à disposition d'un joueur, sans aucun impact pour eux : le joueur part pendant une heure creuse, revient avec le physique qui n'a pas bougé, et avec une valise pleine de billets pour la contribution.

Il y a même une course à la sélection... Quand un joueur est en vente sur le VFo, sur le Mini-chat ou par MP, le vendeur précise que ce

...except that naturalised players have not had access to the Federations for several seasons now 🫠

As for the return to form, I'd have to check, but it seems to me that you're confusing it with the IS selections. Which was indeed a big problem.

And lastly, there's a risk of injury in the federation. And not the least, given the way some selectors play.
So it's not all plain sailing 😉

You know, if a player has a red card and goes to the national team, that cancels it out, yes, it's a big advantage :)

Magpie: ...sauf que les joueurs naturalisés n'ont plus accès aux Fédérations, depuis quelques saisons déjà 🫠

Pour le regain de forme, à vérifier, mais il me semble que tu confonds avec les sélections IS. Ce qui posait gros souci en effet.

Et dernier point, il y'a un risque de blessure en fédération. Et pas des moindres vu les manières de jouer de certains selectionneurs. 2 pour moi cette saison. Donc indisponibilités 10 jours environ.
Tout n'est donc pas gagné "sans rien" 😉
Même s

As far as I'm concerned, I have the option of selecting naturalised players.
As coach, I choose to select only non-naturalised players, but the option is there.

Busy: Pour ma part j’ai la possibilité de sélectionner des joueurs naturalisés..
En tant que sélectionneur, je fais le choix de prendre exclusivement des joueurs non naturalisés, mais la possibilité est la.

Please note that there are 2 types of nationalised.
Those BEFORE aymeric's modification concerning the federations. These can still be selected.

And those naturalised AFTER the change. These are normally no longer eligible for selection

Magpie: Attention, il y'a 2 types de nationalisés.
Ceux AVANT la modification d'aymeric concernant les fédérations. Ceux là restent selectionnables.

Et ceux naturalisés APRÈS la modification. (#forum?topic=165124) Ceux là ne sont plus selectionnables, normalement

OK, thanks for the clarification!

I'm looking for the subject that evokes it.

Found: #forum?topic=165124
(Previous post to embed link)

Magpie: ...sauf que les joueurs naturalisés n'ont plus accès aux Fédérations, depuis quelques saisons déjà 🫠

Pour le regain de forme, à vérifier, mais il me semble que tu confonds avec les sélections IS. Ce qui posait gros souci en effet.

Et dernier point, il y'a un risque de blessure en fédération. Et pas des moindres vu les manières de jouer de certains selectionneurs. 2 pour moi cette saison. Donc indisponibilités 10 jours environ.
Tout n'est donc pas gagné "sans rien" 😉
Même s

Ah, thanks for the clarification about naturalized players before and after modification by the MDJ.
I was completely unaware of this and I'd seen names that weren't Korean or Japanese at all in their respective selections.

If it's already "corrected" then all the better, thanks for the info 👍