It is in the soul-searching aftermath of an England failure at a major tournament that thoughts invariably turn towards the next generation, the young players who will one day, at long last, drive the nation to glory. The debate, however, can lead to further introspection. In the Premier League years, with clubs' squads bloated by overseas players, where is the opportunity for homegrown talent?

Things could be about to change or, at least, a step is to be taken in what is hoped will prove the right direction. As of this season, following Premier League legislation that has been some years in the making, clubs will be forced to include eight homegrown players in a senior squad of no more than 25.

Homegrown players are defined as those having been trained at a club or clubs in England or Wales for three years before the end of the season in which they became 21.

Homegrown players do not have to be English. Cesc Fábregas, for example, Arsenal's Spain midfielder, qualifies, having moved to north London as a 16-year-old. It ought to be pointed out, though, that of the 300 scholars currently at Premier League academies (the 16-18 age group) 245 are English.

Under the new legislation, clubs are also permitted to register and play an unlimited number of under-21s. The theory is that when injuries and suspensions bite in the senior squad, managers will have to turn to youth. It is expected that particularly over the second half of the season, substitute benches will be dotted with academy players.

If clubs cannot fill their quota of eight homegrown players, then their senior squads will be short. The champions Chelsea, for example, only have five homegrown players (John Terry, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, Ross Turnbull and Michael Mancienne). As things stand, the manager, Carlo Ancelotti, will have to name a senior squad of 22 and opportunities will increase for his under-21s. That the players most likely to step up are Gaël Kakuta, Fabio Borini, Jeffrey Bruma and Patrick van Aanholt – in other words, overseas youngsters – is a moot point, and one reflected at other clubs. English players, though, must embrace the competition.

"We'll reflect on this regulation in five or 10 years' time and think it was exactly the right thing to do," said Huw Jennings, the Fulham academy director. "It's not just about the England team, although that is the focus after the World Cup, it's about young players, who are the long-term lifeblood of the game and it's about strengthening the Premier League. Young players should emerge on merit, not because of tokenism, but if we have fewer players in the squads it will create more opportunities."

It is hoped the new regulations will have pluses that go beyond the encouragement of homegrown and academy players and provide clubs with the incentive to continue investing in their youth-development programmes. They might also discourage them from stockpiling senior players and so offer an economic benefit.

"While the sporting factor of encouraging youth development was the main driver behind [the new regulations], it is anticipated that there will also be financial benefits in operating with a smaller pool of contracted players and a higher number of young players developed in England," said Mike Foster, the Premier League general secretary. "It is also hoped that a by-product of the new system will be a bigger pool of players for England to choose from."

But not everyone is convinced. "They mess about with everything, don't they?" said the Tottenham Hotspur manager, Harry Redknapp. "And what difference is it going to make? It's no different really. If the young players are good enough, they'll come through. And if you're having to play them just because they're young and English but they're not good enough, then the league won't improve. They've got to be good enough, wherever they're from.

"You might also get some kids who get in the 25 and then put their feet under the table and don't work on their game. You've got to deserve to be in there, rather than just having them for the sake of it, token players."

One of the principal arguments against the legislation is that it could leave players over the age of 21 out in the cold. If they are not named in the 25, they cannot play until squad changes are permitted in the next transfer window. The Manchester City manager, Roberto Mancini, has 32 senior players at his disposal – following the sale of Javier Garrido to Lazio today and he is under pressure to sell seven of them before the end of August.

"I am quite surprised the players' union accepted this rule as it could put many players out of a job," said the Arsenal manager, Arsène Wenger. "They want to fight against unemployment but they stop us employing footballers. There is no room to move [in the transfer market]. Is 25 enough, given the injuries? It is an artificial rule that I don't like."

"One of the worries," added Jennings, "is the premium that will be placed on the movement from club to club of players who qualify as homegrown. Their price will be driven up, there would be an inflated view of them and I don't think that is healthy."

Concerns have also been expressed about clubs effectively stockpiling their under-21 players to guard against selection crises, rather than loan them out to gain the first-team minutes that can be vital for their development at that stage. It is not always possible to insert instant recall clauses into loan deals.

Yet it ought not to be forgotten that it was the clubs who voted in the legislation at their September meeting of last year. "I've heard that the [club] owners are only interested in the product, but they sanctioned this," said Ged Roddy, the Premier League's director of academies. "They recognise that if we can develop our own players, then we have a much stronger product. We want to get more homegrown players into our first teams. The more we do, the more chance we have of an outstanding England team in the future. This is more than a half-step forward."