Reports that Arsenal are once again looking at Chris Smalling emerge at exactly the same time the Football Association chairman, Greg Dyke, is bemoaning the dearth of English talent in top-level English football and trying to do something about it.

As if to emphasise what the Antiques Roadshow might term the collectability of England-qualified players Arsenal were also one of the clubs said to be interested in Phil Jones around the time he joined Manchester United from Blackburn in June 2011. As were Chelsea and Tottenham, allegedly, though Liverpool were the side most conspicuously in the hunt for the galumphing defender.

Kenny Dalglish was interested in buying British – actually just make that English – and in addition to the expensive mistake that was Andy Carroll and the slow-burning but eventually justifiable Jordan Henderson, the then Liverpool manager was even said to be an admirer of Lee Cattermole. Perhaps he turned to Jones just to allay suspicions that he had a scouting network only in the north-east, but in financial terms the interest was real. United at first imagined they were the only serious bidders and tried to persuade Blackburn to take some of their players in part-exchange, until Liverpool met the cash asking price and forced Sir Alex Ferguson and his club to stump up.

What happened next? Well, Carroll could not live up to his £35m billing, but few ever imagined he would. There were several things wrong with that deal, not least the fact that Dalglish did not last long enough at Liverpool to persuade anyone that big fellas up front were about to come back into fashion, but the price was the most obvious stumbling block.

Henderson was not initially rated by anyone at Anfield either, including Brendan Rodgers, who attempted to offload him for Fulham in exchange for Clint Dempsey. Henderson manfully stood his ground, and has not only rewarded the club with some excellent performances since but emerged as the obvious successor to Steven Gerrard. Yet this was a player dismissed in his early 20s by two leading managers. Rodgers, who thought he had better players for the midfield positions, and Ferguson, who thought there was something funny about the way he ran that put a question mark against his long-term future.

Jones initially fared slightly better at United, at least justifying Ferguson’s faith in his competitive nature. The United manager had been impressed by his composure and commitment as a teenager in some backs-against-the-wall Blackburn displays, and fancied some of that tenacity at Old Trafford. He got it, though after Jones had become injured or conceded goals a few times by throwing himself gung-ho into situations where he had small hope of a positive outcome, people began to ask whether £16m ought not to buy a little more culture and positional awareness.

Jones and Smalling made it into the England team on the back of United, though rarely played together, and even before Louis van Gaal arrived with his philosophy and his different defensive systems the English pair were not regarded as an established partnership at club level either. Injuries have not helped, and bringing in a World Cup finalist in Marcos Rojo complicated the situation, but when Van Gaal finally decided to give Smalling and Jones a try in tandem he was rewarded with two of the best performances of the season, the recent wins against Tottenham and Liverpool.

“You are always going to get criticism, but it spurs you on,” Jones has just said, perhaps responding to Gary Neville’s accusations of pub teams and prehistoric football. “It had been documented that me and Chris were going to be the next centre-backs at United but it has not gone how we would have liked. We have actually played alongside each other about four times in four seasons. That is not enough to form a partnership.”

This is not to suggest United’s troubles are over now they found a promising defensive partnership at long last, or that Van Gaal should ditch his hankering for three at the back and go for two English hearts of oak. The point of the above examples is merely to illustrate that English talent that has been identified, fought over by leading clubs and then purchased at considerable expense does not even then find it easy to hold down a first-team place or make a smooth transition to the national side.

Harry Kane is the exception rather than the rule, as were Wayne Rooney, Michael Owen and Gerrard before him, and what is noticeable about all of them is that they all rose to international prominence with their original clubs. As did United’s Class of 92, though obviously Ryan Giggs was aspiring to play for Wales.

That seems the ideal way to promote and nurture English talent – had Henderson come up through the Liverpool academy his potential as the next Gerrard would have been spotted much earlier and Rodgers would never dared have offered him to Fulham – but it is not always possible. A player who has been at a leading club eight or nine years before he makes his first-team debut is unlikely to be undervalued. If he has what it takes he will be given his chance, though it takes either an exceptional manager or an exceptional group of players for the nucleus of a whole team to make it together, as happened at United. Any player bought or sold, however, becomes a commodity and remains a commodity, and the trouble with the Premier League, famously awash with money, is that there are just too many commodities around.

Look at United at the moment and you see the Premier League’s problem in microcosm. Did they really need to bring in Radamel Falcao, who has been hugely disappointing, or was that just a cosmetic exercise to sex up Van Gaal’s arrival? Ángel Di María, another expensive marquee signing, has struggled all season and it may be the case that United played better when he was suspended. Robin van Persie has also still to return, yet with Rooney back up front and Juan Mata showing his class United are performing perfectly well.

One might easily surmise that United have prospered in the past few weeks because Van Gaal has simply played his best players, and not the ones for which the club paid the most money. They are not all English; the situation is not that simple. Marouane Fellaini and Mata have played their part. But the story of United’s season is that they have too many options through having too much money, and that is what Dyke is up against in attempting to steer Premier League clubs towards sensible, long-term strategies.

In England, it appears for the foreseeable future, there will always be enough money to bring in a World Cup finalist here or a Champions League winner there. So that is what clubs will do. Any quota system that seeks to prevent it will be resisted, because the wealth of the Premier League forms its own circular argument. Clubs are up against immense riches, so how do you fight back with academy products and homegrown talents who may be good in a few years’ time?

To stay in the cash trough, or to make it into the even more lucrative Champions League, you need results now, not a few seasons down the line. How does anyone imagine Manchester City, a well-run club with a competent manager, will deal with the disappointment of finishing the season empty-handed? Are they going to keep faith with Manuel Pellegrini and buy him some Category A players? Or will they sack the manager, bring in a new man and let him bring in some Category A players?

Hands up all those who reckon they will stick with the same manager and players or bring in a new man but rule out any sexy new signings. Hmmm, thought so. City might have more money than most, but the principle is the same throughout the Premier League. Money is there to be spent. Some might even say money is there to be wasted. It would be hard to argue, though the real wastage in this orgy of expensive options is in young English hopes and dreams. Dyke is absolutely right to take up the fight, but make no mistake it is big money in the opposite corner.