A short article in Le Monde described a case of emigration and policies intended to stem it.

The setting is professional hockey in France. Apparently, French teams bring in foreign talent, leaving French players on the bench; frustrated, the French players emigrate to Canada or Finland.

To counter this drain, the French hockey federation has taken a carrot-and-stick approach and implemented incentive policies, including:
  • a subsidy for teams that cap the number of foreign players, clearing space on the roster for French players; and
  • increasing by 15% a levy imposed on international transfers.

The Le Monde article also reports cautionary words from a lawyer, skeptical about EU freedom of movement issues, and a club leader, skeptical because France lacks training infrastructure for promising young players.

This hockey case is small in scale but raises some big questions:
  • Why is there resistance to both inflow (immigration) and outflow (emigration) of players? Exactly who is resisting, in other words whose problem is this?
  • Given that Canadians are coming to France while French hockey players are going to Canada, is there an international hockey player market? Or is there instead segmentation, with the best players in Canada (or the USA) and mid-level players in places like France? 
  • Are French players really being hurt, in terms of yearly or lifetime earnings, or even ice time or goals scored?
  • Is the problem in France a weakness in the image of hockey clubs? Does support of a local team, measured in ticket sales, have anything to do with the number of local players on its roster?
  • Do spectators really think of hockey players in terms of nationality? Is a Canadian star playing in France perceived differently than a French star? 

These are meaty issues. I'm talking them up in the hope that an enterprising student will see in them a promising topic for research. The scale is small enough to permit interviews, and there's good data  within reach.