Eligibility Rules, Okay

[DannyInvincible]

More than happy to do so. Sure all this eligibility talk makes me weak at the knees!

[geysir]

Good work Danny but opinions that Yann has about the statutes differ from what FIFA do in practice. IMO, Yann is not putting value on why the eligibility statutes are there in the first place but is overly focussing on the wording of the statute to define its raison d'etre and bases his opinions about the statute based on the wording of the statute and not on Fifa practice and the evolution of the statutes and this is glaringly so in the the example of new republics being born out of dying entities.
We here have already noted some lack of clarity but what we depend upon is how FIFA practice, their practice defines the interpretation of the statute.

I say FIFA will not oppose the international eligibility to a minor or child when that player has moved to the new country as part of his/her family and not for football motivated decision. Fifa have a clear distinction in the Transfer of players on this
Article 19 .2 The following three exceptions to this rule apply:a) The player’s parents move to the country in which the new club is
located for reasons not linked to football.
And that has also been FIFA practice in relation to international eligibility, regardless if the player was a child or a minor and there are plenty of examples around europe to support that since 2008, in France and Switzerland.

Yann call this an exception by Fifa, IMO this is not an exception, but I say it's just Fifa reserving the right to revue each case and decide on its merits, and what constitutes a positive merit is that the family have move for reasons other than football, a regular immigration. A young player like Noe Baba does not get an exception so that he can be eligible for Ireland, he just satisfies the statutes as they are meant to be interpreted.

[Irwin3]

Nice one Danny. It's good to get the opinions of someone with some educational/professional interest in this area. If I understand correctly then not too much has changed from our group understanding of the minor situation in practice, although there probably aren't any automatic rights involved. My phrase 'statute black hole' certainly fits with his talk of exemptions being granted which may indeed technically be 'illegal' contravening the statutes as written. I think myself and others did speculate that 5 years residence before 18 may well be taken into account, even if this isn't written in the statutes to avert fears of out-and-out child trafficking. As long as the spirit of the true statutes is upheld when granting these exemptions, I don't think anyone would have a problem.

Still we are left with the case of a Qatari player potentially been given an exemption after moving to the country post-18 and living there for 2 years. This is absolutely bonkers if true and makes a mockery of the statutes. The statutes being rewritten after the last uproar may simply be a case of the emperor's new clothes and until there is some serious light shone on the situation at present, they may not be worth the paper they are written on.

[DannyInvincible]

Good work Danny but opinions that Yann has about the statutes differ from what FIFA do in practice. IMO, Yann is not putting value on why the eligibility statutes are there in the first place but is overly focussing on the wording of the statute to define its raison d'etre and bases his opinions about the statute based on the wording of the statute and not on Fifa practice and the evolution of the statutes and this is glaringly so in the the example of new republics being born out of dying entities.
We here have already noted some lack of clarity but what we depend upon is how FIFA practice, their practice defines the interpretation of the statute.

I say FIFA will not oppose the international eligibility to a minor or child when that player has moved to the new country as part of his/her family and not for football motivated decision. Fifa have a clear distinction in the Transfer of players on this
Article 19 .2 The following three exceptions to this rule apply:a) The player’s parents move to the country in which the new club is
located for reasons not linked to football.
And that has also been FIFA practice in relation to international eligibility, regardless if the player was a child or a minor and there are plenty of examples around europe to support that since 2008, in France and Switzerland.

Yann call this an exception by Fifa, IMO this is not an exception, but I say it's just Fifa reserving the right to revue each case and decide on its merits, and what constitutes a positive merit is that the family have move for reasons other than football, a regular immigration. A young player like Noe Baba does not get an exception so that he can be eligible for Ireland, he just satisfies the statutes as they are meant to be interpreted.

Yann's position on article 7 is based upon clarification of the intended purpose of the rule as outlined by Ángel María Villar Llona at the 61st Congress. It was expressly stated that the intent of the rule was to limit the transfer of minors. The Australian and UAE associations proposed that article 7 be amended on separate occasions so that the post-18 stipulation be removed. Although one proposal was withdrawn and the other was rejected by a vote, by their very fact, the proposals further demonstrate how this rule was to ordinarily function. If the UAE had been interpreting the rule incorrectly, FIFA would have made that clear to them to save it from having to go to a vote.

Perhaps the Players' Status Committee judge cases and will decide in favour if the conditions you express are met (no matter how long the minor might have been resident in his new country), but the obvious problem is that we don't really know for sure. We're simply speculating as there is no explicit rule to cover this situation, nor to provide for the granting of exemptions even. As Yann says, it would be much more preferable to have a transparent process with uniform, universal, objective and identifiable criteria as well as published case-law, so at least then we know where everyone stands. Otherwise, we're left scratching our heads over cases like Muntari and Boudiaf, whilst the more cynical amongst us are left fearing there might have been something dodgy going on behind the scenes!

[DannyInvincible]

As was stated and to the best of Yann's knowledge, "exemptions were granted only when the player arrived at a very young age in its country of naturalisation". Assuming he is correct, and I don't doubt that he is considering he studies this matter in depth, it would seem to suggest that not all cases where a minor "has moved to the new country as part of his/her family and not for football motivated decision" will be considered worthy of exemption. If Baba had been naturalised before the age of 18 after coming to Ireland at the age of, say, 15 or 16, rather than much earlier in his life, the feeling is that he might not have been deemed to merit an exemption. Or it would at least seem that the likelihood of an exemption being granted would be less.

[geysir]

Yann's position on article 7 is based upon clarification of the intended purpose of the rule as outlined by Ángel María Villar Llona at the 61st Congress. It was expressly stated that the intent of the rule was to limit the transfer of minors. The Australian and UAE associations proposed that article 7 be amended on separate occasions so that the post-18 stipulation be removed. Although one proposal was withdrawn and the other was rejected by a vote, by their very fact, the proposals further demonstrate how this rule was to ordinarily function. If the UAE had been interpreting the rule incorrectly, FIFA would have made that clear to them to save it from having to go to a vote.

Perhaps the Players' Status Committee judge cases and will decide in favour if the conditions you express are met (no matter how long the minor might have been resident in his new country), but the obvious problem is that we don't really know for sure. We're simply speculating as there is no explicit rule to cover this situation, nor to provide for the granting of exemptions even. As Yann says, it would be much more preferable to have a transparent process with uniform, universal, objective and identifiable criteria as well as published case-law, so at least then we know where everyone stands. Otherwise, we're left scratching our heads over cases like Muntari and Boudiaf, whilst the more cynical amongst us are left fearing there might have been something dodgy going on behind the scenes!

I was referring specifically to 2 items. The first was the claim that an exception has to be made to the rule to allow children of migrants to play for their new country. I say it's Fifa practice to allow children of migrants to play from their new country once their migration has been certified kosher.
If it isn't spelled out exactly in the statutes then it will be, should it become an issue. It doesn't need fixing until loopholes are found and exploited
That practice is already written into other statutes to do with transfer of minors to clubs.
The minutes for the 61st Congress do not contradict this, it is stated there that Fifa want to limit the transfer of minors. If the purpose is to limit the transfer of minors, then there is some process, some conditions, some criteria to satisfy and it just so happens that those criteria are written elsewhere. I say you should examine FIFA practice to find out what Fifa do and what Fifa do in reality defines their ideology on this matter. If a new wording has to come about it will just reflect their ideological established position.

The rejection by the Fifa congress of the changing of the statute as proposed by the UAE, is fully in compliance with my opinion, Fifa could not allow that change because it would open the door wide for what they regard as the exploitation of minors.

The second issue would the statement by Yann
"In my opinion, a player changing its eligibility according to article 8.2 must meet the stipulations of article 7"
There is no evidence for that and quite frankly I'd regard it as a "makey up" opinion.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest a player in that situation would have to satisfy conditions in article 7.
The player's application would be reviewed on its merits, how the citizenship was lost and his new nationality.
But to starkly state a player "must meet conditions of article 7" is very dubious.
That is why I said or alluded to, that he is not basing his opinions on Fifa practice but on his opinions, unsupported opinions, at least in this example

[Charlie Darwin]

geysir has seen his status as the high authority on FIFA eligibility matters challenged by a young upstart with fancy dan qualifications and he's responding well.

[DannyInvincible]

I was referring specifically to 2 items. The first was the claim that an exception has to be made to the rule to allow children of migrants to play for their new country. I say it's Fifa practice to allow children of migrants to play from their new country once their migration has been certified kosher.

No matter what their age was when they arrived in their new country? Can you say with certainty that it is" Fifa practice to allow children of migrants [of all ages?] to play from their new country once their migration has been certified kosher"? To the best of Yann's knowledge, "exemptions were granted only when the player arrived at a very young age in its country of naturalisation". Is there evidence to suggest otherwise?

If it isn't spelled out exactly in the statutes then it will be, should it become an issue. It doesn't need fixing until loopholes are found and exploited

If you don't perceive there to be an issue of legal ambiguity presently, what do you think might result in it becoming an issue?

That practice is already written into other statutes to do with transfer of minors to clubs.
The minutes for the 61st Congress do not contradict this, it is stated there that Fifa want to limit the transfer of minors. If the purpose is to limit the transfer of minors, then there is some process, some conditions, some criteria to satisfy and it just so happens that those criteria are written elsewhere. I say you should examine FIFA practice to find out what Fifa do and what Fifa do in reality defines their ideology on this matter. If a new wording has to come about it will just reflect their ideological established position.

Where are they written elsewhere exactly? Article 19 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which you cited in a previous post, relates to and grants exceptions for minors who wish to cross an international boundary to sign for a new club. It does not relate to the switching of an international association; that is a legally separate matter. I'm not necessarily saying that the Players' Status Committee wouldn't look favourably upon naturalised minors who wish to switch association and happen to meet those criteria of this separate article because I simply don't know - indeed, your argument is compelling and would make sense - but to assert that this article or its excepting criteria cover this latter situation is surely no more than an assumption?

The rejection by the Fifa congress of the changing of the statute as proposed by the UAE, is fully in compliance with my opinion, Fifa could not allow that change because it would open the door wide for what they regard as the exploitation of minors.

It was rejected to safeguard the integrity of national associations and to limit the transfer of minors, but I'm not sure that it does necessarily say anything as to the correctness or incorrectness of your opinion.

The second issue would the statement by Yann
"In my opinion, a player changing its eligibility according to article 8.2 must meet the stipulations of article 7"
There is no evidence for that and quite frankly I'd regard it as a "makey up" opinion.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest a player in that situation would have to satisfy conditions in article 7.
The player's application would be reviewed on its merits, how the citizenship was lost and his new nationality.
But to starkly state a player "must meet conditions of article 7" is very dubious.
That is why I said or alluded to, that he is not basing his opinions on Fifa practice but on his opinions, unsupported opinions, at least in this example

Fair point, although Yann did acknowledge that some members of the FIFA administration do not share his view, which is more or less to say that his opinion is only that and is open to correction.

[DannyInvincible]

I felt it might be helpful to get a direct response from Yann to your thoughts, geysir. I emailed him the content of both your previous two posts last night and, welcoming your challenge, here is what he said verbatim in response to post #6742:

Transfer of players and transfer of allegiance are two separate concepts governed by different two set of rules. If the first includes a provision on the status of minor, the second does not – and on purpose! (see: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...eams_55197.pdf) Thus, you simply cannot use the exception provided by article 19.2 in relation with athlete eligibility in national to justify separate treatment for minor in this context. This is clearly an error in law.

I do not see the difference between “FIFA reserving the right to revue each case and decide on its merits” and the actual exception procedure set up by FIFA. I am merely stating that there is currently no express legal basis to grant such an exemption and that FIFA administration and the Player’s Status Committee are bound by the regulations decided by the Congress. Last, it is for a Court – and only a Court – to depart from the FIFA regulations if they infringe the personality right of a player.

And in response to post #6746:

The structure and the purpose of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes imply that Articles 5 and 7 must be satisfied at all time. They are to be considered stipulations of general, respectively of specific nature.

Article 8.1 is intended to be the “normal” process to switch allegiance. Prior to 2003, change in eligibility was not possible as a matter of principle: the only exception being in the case of territorial mutation. Article 8.2 succeeded this concept (although with a different wording) and thus, has always been regarded and understood as a safety clause. For your information, this kind of clause is interpreted narrowly under Swiss law.

Assuming naturalized players do not have to meet the stipulations of article 7, they would be immediately eligible after losing their previous citizenship (we are also assuming that their country of origin does not recognize dual nationality). If Articles 8.2 and 7 are not applied together, there is nothing preventing a country from “poaching” players from countries not recognizing dual nationality knowing that these players will be immediately eligible for its national side. This simply defies the purpose of Article 7.

[DannyInvincible]

The BIPA discussion is being broadcast live here now: http://www.britishirish.org/

The 50th plenary programme: http://www.britishirish.org/assets/5...-Programme.pdf

PANEL DISCUSSION ON SPORT AND ITS CONTRIBUTION TO
COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.

 Mr. Ryan Feeney, Head of Community and Public Affairs, Ulster Gaelic Athletic
Association (GAA);
 Ms. Claire Adams, Outreach Project Officer, Irish Football Association (IFA);
 Ms. Miriam Malone, Business Partnerships Manager, Football Association of Ireland
(FAI);
 Mr. Hugo MacNeill, Member of the British Irish Association (BIA) and former Rugby
International;
 Mr. Trevor Ringland, Chairman of PeacePlayers International Northern Ireland (PPI)
(NI) and former Rugby International.

[DannyInvincible]

In his summary, Feighan (at 01:23:50 of the fourth recording below) said he hoped that some protocol/"fair solution" could be agreed between the FAI and IFA on the eligibility matter; clearly, he has not taken note of the fact that to deny against their wishes certain Irish nationals the right to be chosen by Ireland would be to treat such players uniquely unfairly and distinctly from all other international footballers around the world. No matter how well-intentioned he claims his motives might be, it would be to deny them their rights under the FIFA regulations.

The idea of a single all-island team rose its head (after a question by the SDLP's Seán Rogers at 33:07 in the fourth recording below) and I thought Hugo MacNeill made a very profound and sensitive point (at 01:19:01) when he said that proposals that might seem superficially compelling or attractive to some may be deeply provocative to others from a different walk of life. Obviously, he was referring to any proposal that might compel an unwilling IFA to join up with the FAI and the possible lack of understanding of the Ulster unionist identity and their traditions amongst non-unionists that would be involved in the viewing of such a proposal as attractive (possibly more so out of ignorance than anything else), but the same principle applies to the eligibility matter. It might sound superficially compelling to the likes of Feighan (who admitted at 01:23:04 to his ignorance of the social reality in the north when growing up 40 miles from the border and whilst supporting NI on television at the 1982 World Cup) to limit those born in the north to play for the IFA team only in the interests of togetherness or whatever, but it is an opinion that is profoundly provocative to the likes of myself and a whole community of Irish nationals from the north who don't necessarily have any animosity towards the IFA or whatever; they just want to support their national football team. It's not that they have something in particular against the IFA; it's simply that the IFA is as of much cultural relevance to them as, say, the FA, SFA or FAW would be.

I only realised the thing was being broadcast live shortly before it started but managed to get some of the speeches and the questions/responses recorded. The sound-quality isn't terrific, but the speech is at least clear and comprehensible, bar some interfering noise at the very beginning of a few of the recordings.

I missed the initial few seconds, but here is the opening contribution of Claire Adams of the IFA: https://soundcloud.com/dannyinvincib...aire-adams-ifa

And the opening contribution of Miriam Malone of the FAI: https://soundcloud.com/dannyinvincib...iam-malone-fai

Trevor Ringland's opening contribution: https://soundcloud.com/dannyinvincib...revor-ringland

A general recording featuring questions, panelist responses and a summation by Frank Feighan: https://soundcloud.com/dannyinvincib...eral-questions

It is in the general recording that the eligibility matter is primarily dealt with after a question was posed on "the poaching of the young Northern Irish players/IFA's best players" by a poorly-informed Sammy Douglas of the DUP (from 05:06 of the fourth recording). He repeatedly referred to the FAI as "the FIA" and then Aiden McGeady as "Aideen McGinley" before attempting to correct himself with "Aiden McGready"!

Claire Adams of the IFA (from 14:02 in the fourth recording) acknowledged it is a matter of player choice. The IFA's official or public position would appear to be one of acceptance of the rules and of the right of Irish nationals to channel their interest elsewhere if they so wish. She said it is up to the IFA to show eligible players what they have to offer, continue to foster a welcoming spirit for all and hope that that will be enough to maintain the interest of those who are happy to play for the IFA.

Miriam Malone of the FAI (from 19:22 in the fourth recording) also made very clear that it was the idea of respecting individual player choice that was fundamental to this matter. She understood there can be an impact in terms of the IFA possibly losing the option of selecting once-eligible quality players born in the north because they've declared elsewhere, but it boils down to respecting player choice ultimately.

Ryan Feeney of the GAA gave his opinion on it (from 09:48 of the fourth recording) and said it's important to broaden the debate beyond the "poaching" framework. He did say that he had been speaking with Trevor Ringland earlier in the day though and they agreed that "there are eligibility rules in place and, if they were applied, everyone would be happy". I'm not sure whether the insinuation was that the rules governing eligibility are not being applied at present, but, just in case, I have clarified the matter for him via Twitter. Of course, the universal rules are being applied very much correctly, but, unfortunately, and as we well know, that is not enough to keep everyone happy.

Unfortunately, Trevor Ringland (from 23:05 in the fourth recording) also stated that the rules aren't being applied correctly. I've since tweeted him also to clarify this for him. He seemed not to perceive the obvious contradiction in his stance where he was seemingly advocating the limiting of player choice where Irish nationals born in the north were concerned but later (from 38:15) opposed the notion of a single all-island team as it would be to trample upon the NI/unionist identity. He said "Northern Ireland exists" and he said they have their own identity; that's all well and good, and good for them, but the Irish nationalist minority also exists and that community also have their own distinct identity. You can't have your cake and eat it; tolerate others as you too wish to be tolerated and all that. Nationalists can channel their national identity through the FAI, which is fine, and unionists can channel their identity through the IFA, which is also fine. I sent him a few tweets which included the following:

As you said, NI exists and you have your own identity. To deprive you of your football team by compelling you into a single all-island team is something you would not appreciate. Indeed, I would object to that. Likewise, it is important to recognise identity of Irish nationals from NI & their right to choice. The reality is they channel their identity through FAI team. Compelling them to play for IFA would be to deny them right and would be a denial of their national identity. They choose because they are Irish nationals; not out of any animus towards #IFA necessarily. For many in NI, the IFA team is simply culturally irrelevant. That's just the reality and nothing inherently wrong with that. Important to recognise & tolerate. National identity transcends political boundaries. Just to clarify, I would object to compelling NI/IFA and your players/fans into a single all-island team against your wishes. Your objection to it is entirely reasonable, as is the wish of Irish nationals to play for FAI team. Just to provide analogy.

[Gather round]

Thanks for spending presumably many hours listening to and then writing that DI

Re: Feighan. That's potentially the nub, isn't it? Either we go on as now, with many NI fans irritated and stirred up by cynical Unionist politicians, and resulting bad feeling which which will irritate IR fans in turn. Or we consider some compromise, albeit by its nature messy, temporary and ad hoc. I've suggested here many times that the FAI could argue not to pick any players who've already represented NI adult teams (ie U-19 and older). It isn't an inalienable human right to be chosen for a football team.

Hugo MacNeill is right, although it's a bit depressing that you describe his contribution as profound. He's just stating the obvious- NI fans want there to be a NI team pretty much by definition. Some of the IR fans disagreeing are ignorant as you suggest (daydreaming, I'd prefer). Others, to repeat as ever are either trolls on a wind-up or the sort of numbheads who think merging two bad football teams will produce one good one almost inevitably.

The IFA and FAI spokeswomen make fair points.

[DannyInvincible]

I've suggested here many times that the FAI could argue not to pick any players who've already represented NI adult teams (ie U-19 and older). It isn't an inalienable human right to be chosen for a football team.

I'm not necessarily condemning the sentiment of your proposal, but, say, if a former NI under-21 international lodged his request to switch to the FAI with the Players' Status Committee, they'll switch him over (the IFA won't have any authority to stop this over the Players' Status Committee), and then for the FAI to tell him that he's barred from selection by way of an internal/informal agreement with the IFA so they will not be selecting him, I'm pretty sure he'd have a case there against the FAI (and possibly the IFA) for attempted infringement of his personality rights. He'll also have effectively barred himself from international football against his will due to a complete breach of FIFA's regulations by the associations concerned, unless FIFA were to step in to enforce his right and demand the FAI/IFA drop this "agreement", which I'm sure they would do if they heard wind of such an attempt to limit the transfer of a player.

You'd also have to explain why a certain category of Irish nationals should be treated uniquely and distinctly from every other dual/multiple nationality footballer around the world.

Hugo MacNeill is right, although it's a bit depressing that you describe his contribution as profound. He's just stating the obvious- NI fans want there to be a NI team pretty much by definition.

Possibly I was overly generous, but it stood out and I thought it worth noting because, no matter how obvious it seems, many people just can't seem to (or don't want to) see it and empathise with others whose circumstances would be affected adversely in a very direct manner by something that might seem positive to them. If we think certain NI fans saying things like "if you're born in Norn Iron then you're Norn Irish and you should play for Norn Iron" sounds ignorant and provocative, then we have to appreciate that calls for a single all-island team sound pretty stupid and provocative to NI fans in return without some sort of political agreement or solution, depending on your perspective, over the big constitutional question first.

The IFA and FAI spokeswomen make fair points.

The IFA have definitely changed their tack and seem to be taking the progressive, proactive and responsible approach to this now instead of whining and deflecting blame onto others. It's bound to be reaping rewards with more players from Catholic backgrounds seemingly content to stick with them, as Claire Adams seems to indicate. I'll even admit it has engendered a newfound (degree of) respect within me for them.

[Gather round]

I'm not necessarily condemning the sentiment of your proposal, but, say, if a former NI under-21 international lodged his request to switch to the FAI with the Players' Status Committee, they'll switch him over (the IFA won't have any authority to stop this over the Players' Status Committee), and then for the FAI to tell him that he's barred from selection by way of an internal/informal agreement with the IFA so they will not be selecting him, I'm pretty sure he'd have a case there against the FAI (and possibly the IFA) for attempted infringement of his personality rights. He'll also have effectively barred himself from international football against his will due to a complete breach of FIFA's regulations by the associations concerned, unless FIFA were to step in to enforce his right and demand the FAI/IFA drop this "agreement", which I'm sure they would do if they heard wind of such an attempt to limit the transfer of a player.

You'd also have to explain why a certain category of Irish nationals should be treated uniquely and distinctly from every other dual/multiple nationality footballer around the world

I accept the problem (and indeed anticipated it by referring the messiness of any ad hoc deal). Clearly I'd prefer the hypothetical situations to involve the young prodigy turning down either the early NI youth cap or later full IR approach

Maybe FIFA would step in as you suggest, always assuming there was nothing more important on the agenda. Like filling in their World Cup wallchart -cum-Advent Calendar, say.

Infringement of personality rights isn't a legal principle I know much about, so for the moment I'll stick to the Law ignoring trivia if ye don't mind...

[DannyInvincible]

I asked Yann about a few other matters of interest...

He agrees with the interpretation that FIFA most likely consider having a grandparent born north of the border to be sufficient enough to render a player eligible for Ireland under the condition of article 7(c), as such an approach would be consistent with the fact that people born in the north can claim Irish nationality by law.

He is also of the opinion that it is probably the first competitive international appearance after a switch that ties a player to his new association and not the request to switch itself. Interestingly, though, he claims that our "test case", Bobby Zamora, never requested a change of association (even though media articles quite clearly state he had a request approved and was all ready to play for Trinidad & Tobago after having played for England competitively at under-age level) as he does not feature on a FIFA database to which Yann has access.

He will try and seek official clarification on these matters when he next meets the head of the PSC in April and is also going to try and find out from his contacts if there are others within the FIFA administration who might agree with his opinion on the suggested nexus between articles 8.2 and 7.

[TrapAPony]

Interestingly, though, he claims that our "test case", Bobby Zamora, never requested a change of association (even though media articles quite clearly state he had a request approved and was all ready to play for Trinidad & Tobago after having played for England competitively at under-age level) as he does not feature on a FIFA database to which Yann has access.

Should have asked him if any English or American lads have recently requested to play for us. Who is on their FIFA database?

[DannyInvincible]

I'm not aware of any names and can't go into further detail, sorry.

[DannyInvincible]

Here are some general figures on switches that Yann has presented/published as part of a talk ("Blurred nationalities: who gets to play for whom at the 2014 FIFA World Cup?" A critical analysis of the current FIFA Regulations on national team representation): http://www.academia.edu/7264909/_Blu...representation







The images are from pages 35-37 of his presentation and are accurate up until June 2014.

[Olé Olé]

Some great graphs there to reaffirm some of the trends that we would have noted previously. For example, African-born players switching association is only 2% but players switching to African associations is 38% of switches- see the Algerian football team at the 2014 World Cup. A lot of inter-European switches also. I'd wager a high amount relating to players switching to or from Germany, England and Switzerland. Those would be some interesting graphs too!

[DannyInvincible]

Yann looked at the Netherlands specifically in his presentation as an example of an association that has had a significant number of players switch to other associations. See page 38.

Article 8 (Change of Association)

The Netherlands : “lost” 16 players

8 : Morocco

2 : Turkey

1 : Ghana

1: Cape Verde Islands

1 : Cameroon

1 : Bosnia and Herzegovina

1 : Iraq

1 : Iran