I put forward [to Yann] our interpretation or presumption that naturalised under-18s qualify automatically (possibly under article 5.1 alone) without the invoking of article 7, as if their new nationality was not considered a newly-acquired one for the purpose of the regulations because it was acquired as a minor or as if the eligibility criteria simply didn't apply because they were minors, but he stated that this simply wasn’t correct as it breached the literal wording of the regulations. Minors who acquire a new nationality after birth also must ordinarily satisfy the article 7 criteria, irrespective of age. Of our interpretation, he stated:
"Such interpretation breaches the literal wording of FIFA regulations and the purpose of the rule (see the comment of Ángel María Villar Llona in the minutes [below]). You have to be aware that United Arab Emirates Federation raised the point that naturalized players are de facto banned from international competition until the age of 23 (at best) and that the Congress acknowledged this fact and vetoed a proposal of the UAEF to remove this rule (153 vote against and only 42 in favor)."
See section 12.2.2 on pages 22-23 of the Agenda for the 61st Congress in 2011 for the UAEF’s proposal to amend article 7 (then article 17):
http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/affed...011_inhalt.pdf
The UAEF sought amendment for the very reason that article 7(d) does apply to minors. They wished to see the stipulation in article 7(d) reduced to three years from five and proposed a new criterion (e) which would have rendered a player who assumed a new nationality eligible if he had "lived continuously for at least five years before the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant association".
See pages 30-31 of the Minutes of the 61st Congress for confirmation of the rejection of the proposal and the opinion of Ángel María Villar Llona who confirmed that the article was intended to apply to minors in limiting their transfer:
http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/affed...es2011_all.pdf
Yann understands that exemptions are most likely to be granted "when a player can prove he has lived in its country of naturalization for a period close to five-year, even before the age of 18". He confirmed there have been German and Australian cases (although he isn’t aware of the names of the specific players concerned), and in the latter case, he said "it is noteworthy to know that the Australian FA dropped its requested to amend the FIFA regulation just before the 2013 Congress", we presume because they were granted or promised exemptions for naturalised under-age players in return.
See section 13.2 on page 36 of the Minutes from the 63rd Congress in 2013 confirming Australia’s withdrawal of the proposal:
http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/affed...kt_neutral.pdf
He made the following very insightful points as to why FIFA might prefer a continuation of the present situation whereby exemptions are granted with article 7(d) still intact:
"In my opinion, the FIFA administration and the Player’s Status Committee are bound by the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, which provides no legal basis to grant such an exception. This being, I am also of the opinion that art. 7 lit. d FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, although it was passed by the Congress, is probably not proportionate and thus, could be deemed illegal under EU law [
https://www.academia.edu/291079/La_q..._du_Monde_2010 at para 39 ff]"
Perhaps the FIFA administration tries to prevent football players rushing to courts by granting these exceptions. If FIFA sought to apply their regulations strictly to a player who had not satisfied the five-year residency rule, Yann felt the player "could argue that FIFA regulations prevent him to seek employment in another country, thus tying him to the said country, and that it amounts to a restriction to his freedom of movement under EU law. The length of the ban could also be deemed not proportionate, especially when tied to the 18th birthday of the player".
Bookmarks