Simon Rolfes, Bayer Leverkusen's managing director for sport, told Bild this week that he wants Arsenal in the Champions League last sixteen draw. He specifically named Hincapie and Kai Havertz as former players he would be happy to face. The man who still holds Hincapie's contract at Leverkusen is publicly lobbying for this tie, and the question every Arsenal fan is now asking is the one Rolfes has apparently already answered for himself: can Hincapie actually play against the club that owns him?

The confusion here is understandable, because the two sets of rules point in opposite directions. In the Premier League, a loan player cannot face his parent club. That has been the rule since 2004. It is an FA-governed domestic rule that applies only to domestic competition in England.

UEFA competitions operate under a completely different principle. UEFA regulations contain explicit provisions that strictly forbid any club from exerting, or attempting to exert, any influence whatsoever over the players that another club may field in a match. The direct consequence of this rule is that any clause in a private loan agreement between clubs that functions to restrict who a club can pick is, in UEFA's own words, null, void and unenforceable.

Leverkusen cannot tell Arsenal who to select. They cannot insert a clause in Hincapie's loan agreement that prevents Arteta from starting him against them in Europe.

UEFA did not just write this rule and leave it untested. They have enforced it. When Atletico Madrid faced Chelsea in the 2014 Champions League semi-finals, Thibaut Courtois was on loan at Atletico from Chelsea. A clause in his loan contract required Atletico to pay Chelsea a reported fee of around £2.5 million per match if they selected him against his parent club, a sum Atletico's president said the club could not afford. Chelsea initially appeared to support the clause's enforcement. UEFA overruled both clubs. They confirmed that Courtois was eligible to play without any payment being made, stating explicitly that the clause was incompatible with UEFA's regulations on competitive integrity. Courtois played in both legs. Atletico eliminated Chelsea 3-1 on aggregate. That case established the position clearly. Parent clubs tried to use loan agreements to restrict player selection in European competition. UEFA said no and has said no ever since.

Hincapie is named on Arsenal's official UEFA Champions League List A squad for the 2025/26 season. He has featured in the competition for us this season and is an established part of how Arteta deploys the squad in Europe. The suggestion that he would somehow become ineligible to face one specific opponent runs directly against how UEFA law works. Rolfes knows this. His comments to Bild were made in full awareness of the eligibility rules. He mentioned Hincapie by name as part of the appeal of the draw, not as a source of concern. He is not banking on a contractual restriction to protect Leverkusen, because no such restriction can exist under UEFA rules. He simply wants the tie regardless. Arteta decides who plays. UEFA made sure of that in 2014. Leverkusen have no say whatsoever.

Yes. UEFA regulations explicitly prohibit any club from exerting influence over another club's team selection in European competition, including over their own loaned players. Any loan clause attempting to restrict this is null, void and unenforceable under UEFA rules.

No. The FA prohibits loan players from featuring against their parent club in domestic competition in England. This rule applies to the Premier League, the FA Cup and the EFL Cup, but it has no jurisdiction over UEFA competitions.

Yes. Hincapie is listed on Arsenal's official UEFA Champions League List A squad for the 2025/26 season.

UEFA regulations contain explicit provisions forbidding any club from exerting any influence, directly or indirectly, over the team selection of another club competing in the same UEFA competition. Any contractual clause in a private loan agreement that attempts to restrict who a club fields is considered null, void and unenforceable. This position was publicly confirmed by UEFA in 2014 during the Thibaut Courtois case involving Atletico Madrid and Chelsea.