I posed some further questions and scenarios for further illumination on the possibility of internal association policies and the nature of player rights, including personality rights:
Myself: For the sake of argument, say, if the FAI and IFA had an informal agreement whereby the FAI agreed not to select Irish nationals by birth who were born in Northern Ireland, would such a "selection policy" of the FAI be viable within the rules?
Yann: No – there is no room within the current regulatory context for such an agreement. Only associations sharing a common nationality may enter into an agreement – which must be ratified by FIFA (article 6 para 2, second sentence, of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes). FIFA regulations are “mandatory rules” (ie “overriding mandatory provisions” if they were part of a national state law) in this context. National associations have no possibility to bend the rules.
Myself: This would be slightly different to the Kearns issue where Kearns' "right to switch association" was specifically mentioned and upheld. If Kearns had not first played for the IFA, for example, would he have had any enforceable right(s)?
Yann: The difficult part is always proving that there is a gentleman’s agreement in force. If it is made public or the association publicly stated that it would not select him because of an agreement, he may have had a case.
Myself: Would he, as an Irish national by birth, have had a right to be at least available for selection by the FAI?
Yann: Under FIFA regulations, he is available for selection.
Myself: The above is often suggested by unionist politicians and supporters of Northern Ireland as a "solution" to the fact that Irish nationals born in Northern Ireland are eligible to play for the Republic of Ireland, although (thankfully, I say) there's no indication that the FAI would ever consider agreeing to or employing such a restrictive policy against a certain category of Irish nationals by birth based upon the location of their birth, but, in theory, would there be anything in FIFA law (or higher) that would stop the FAI from employing such a policy like, say, the New Zealand Rugby Union does in rugby, even if it were a unilateral decision and without the IFA's input?
Yann: As you suggest, the only way would be that the FAI endorses such a policy unilaterally. FIFA would have no say in the matter.
Myself: Even if a player exercised his right to switch under article 8, hypothetically, the "losing" and "receiving" associations could comply with the administrative side of the request under FIFA regulations, but the "receiving" association could still just refrain from selecting the player on the basis of a secret agreement and nobody would know any better.
Yann: This is unfortunately always possible.
Myself: I'm not an expert in the field of personality rights by any means, but you have mentioned them in relation to Breel Embolo and they were also mentioned in the Kearns case by Kearns' solicitor, David Casserly; what sort of obligation might such rights impose upon associations/FIFA? Could they potentially prevent an association from adopting a unilateral selection policy (so long as the policy was known, in order for an affected player to bring an action against it)? Could Novo have viably claimed his personality rights were being infringed upon by the seemingly-informal British associations' agreement at the time, for example?
Yann: Personality rights (under article 28 Swiss Civil Code) are the equivalent of constitutional rights within a private context, ie when dealing with in the relations between individuals. In a sporting context, they protect for instance the right of an individual to his physical integrity, to participate in sport at the appropriate level (in an amateur context), to engage in commercial activities (economic freedom – in a professional context), to privacy, to his name and image, etc. An infringement of personality rights is unlawful unless it is justified by the consent of the person whose rights are infringed or by an overriding public or private interest or by law (article 28, para 2, Swiss Civil Code).
In Novo’s case, he certainly did not consent to the infringement of his personality rights and there was no law (enacted by the State) addressing the issue. It was thus left to the concept of overriding private interest to decide on the matter. This means, that the national association posing a ban on Novo would have had to explain to a Court why it did so and to prove that its interests were of superior value than the rights of Novo to be available for selection.
Myself: If FIFA were to legally provide for a formal agreement between the FAI and IFA under special circumstances in relation to the selection of Northern Ireland-born Irish nationals by the FAI (as FIFA did seem content to do during 2007, although such consideration was discarded by 2008 once the nature of the Irish situation and Irish nationality became clearer to FIFA), would an Irish national player born in Northern Ireland who sought to play for the Republic of Ireland on the basis of his nationality have a viable case if he alleged unreasonable discrimination (disproportionality perhaps?), an infringement of his personality rights or something along those lines? After all, it would be a situation whereby certain nationals by birth of one country were being treated differently under the rules from all other nationals by birth globally, simply on the basis of the location of their birth (in Northern Ireland).
Yann: FIFA is bound by its regulations. As previously stated, only associations sharing a common nationality may currently enter into a specific agreement. Thus, the player would simply have to point out to the Court that there is no legal basis for this agreement and that FIFA has no authority to ratify it. The argument resorts to the law of association (under article 75 Swiss Civil Code). In addition, the player may also raise the argument of the infringement of his personality rights.
Myself: If FIFA expressly regulated/provisioned for a restrictive agreement between the FAI and IFA that denied Irish nationals the opportunity to be selected by the FAI, would that nullify the viability of any possible case that an affected Irish national player born in Northern Ireland might have against the associations/FIFA?
Yann: That would not nullify the viability of the case per se. In your hypothesis, the player could only rely on the infringement of his personality rights to argue his case (he is prevented from playing for what he feels “his country”). He could not resort to the law of association.
Balls.ie have written something on the debuts of Houghton and Aldridge against Wales 29 years ago today and it quotes some opinions from the time on our utilisation of the "granny rule": http://balls.ie/football/29-years-ag...rish-football/
Did the entire football world really think of it as a big joke? Or was it just the four British associations that had an issue with it? The four British associations had always been reluctant to exploit the "granny rule" and were openly hostile to it, but it's not as if Ireland have been the only nation to gain advantage from selecting players qualifying through grand-parentage down through the years. Italy have always had their oriundi, for example. Other nations have benefited too. If the football world really thought of the practice as such a joke, then why allow it to continue and later explicitly protect the eligibility of nationals through grand-parentage when criteria were first brought into the regulations in 2004 to distinguish between certain nationals in terms of eligibility/ineligibility?Originally Posted by Balls.ie
God blissus 'n' sivvus; is there nothing sacred any more?!: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/inter...lay-on-sundat/
Even my old buddy, Gary McAllister, wades in with some rich comments about respecting choice...
The 'Football World' for English tabloid media then (and with phone-ins and social media now) meant/ means England. In 1986 it widely ridiculed the FAI calling up lots of players from England. Not so much the Scotland, Wales and NI FAs. Wider political events presumably influenced this.
A conciliatory older and wiser Gary moves on from his mistakes...but Danny can't resist a snideGod blissus 'n' sivvus; is there nothing sacred any more?!: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/inter...lay-on-sundat/
Even my old buddy, Gary McAllister, wades in with some rich comments about respecting choice...
You should take Larry Olivier's advice BTW. Avoid roles with foreign accents...
Last edited by Gather round; 27/03/2015 at 1:03 PM.
Danny, don't forget that a big difference with the UK is that it doesn't pass on citizenship further than through parents. i.e. if the 4 nations had their own citizenships and passports with their current rules, (English born player with Scottish grandparent - i.e. James Morrison) wouldn't be a Scottish citizen and would have no right to it. Ourselves and countries with strong 'jus sanguinis' like Italy have long sought to enable our diasporas to maintain their nationality through the generations if they so wish to do so.
Last edited by Irwin3; 27/03/2015 at 5:20 PM.
Don't worry, I didn't forget. I simply never knew in the first place!
For some reason, I'd kind of just unthinkingly assumed British citizenship was similar to ours on that front even though I have read around its details and particulars from time to time. I guess a mention of grandparentage can't stand out to a reader when it's absent.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 28/03/2015 at 3:36 AM.
Yeah, it's interesting to find out the peculiarities of different country's citizenship rules. When I was younger and people talked about the granny rule I realised that through my grandfather I was eligible for the USA, although obviously myself, and as I found out, even my father had no right to American citizenship. The USA doesn't pass down citizenship automatically even to children, unless the parent has lived a certain amount of time in the USA. I think my grandfather would have had to have lived in the USA for 10 years (with at least 5 of these post-14th birthday) to have passed it down which he didn't have, having moved back to Ireland when he was just 1 year old.Don't worry, I didn't forget. I simply never knew in the first place!
For some reason, I'd kind of just unthinkingly assumed British citizenship was similar to ours on that front even though I have read around its details and particulars from time to time. I guess a mention of grandparentage can't stand out to a reader when its absent.
In fact, just to check. In this case would I be eligible having an American born grandfather but with no American citizenship or passport?
geysir or Danny could correct me here, but the underlying condition for eligibility is that you hold permanent nationality, i.e. you either have a passport or are entitled to one should you seek it. So you wouldn't be eligible.
Darren Randolph, for instance, is eligible for Ireland and the US. I don't know if he has a US passport - he might not - but he'd be eligible as his American father could confer citizenship to him. He could probably actually play for the US while having only an Irish passport.
Last edited by Charlie Darwin; 28/03/2015 at 3:51 AM.
Stupid question, that sounds right. Presumably though if they felt like handing me citizenship and a passport I would be eligible with no residency period necessary.
He'd be eligible as long as his father fulfilled the residency criteria (which he presumably does as it was made laxer in 1986) before his birth to pass on the citizenship. In fact it also depends on the parents marital status as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tates_citizens
I see he is reported as being a dual-passport holder so it's a moot point.
Last edited by Irwin3; 28/03/2015 at 4:03 AM.
If they granted you citizenship, you'd still be subject to the criteria in Article 6 (page 63) here: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe..._e_neutral.pdf
As far as I know, Randolph's father was born and raised in the US to American-born parents so his citizenship is permanent. That would satisfy the criteria of Article 6.
Charlie is correct. As is outlined in the general principle found in article 5, back to which both articles 6 and 7 refer, possessing the nationality is a prerequisite before the various other criteria (birthplace/parentage/grandparentage/residence) come into play. Each article specifies that a player must first be in possession of the relevant nationality.
A passport is simply documentary evidence of possession of a certain nationality, so one can certainly be a national of a certain country without being in possession of a passport of that country. As far as I know, FIFA prefer that players of respective nations hold the passport of that nation. I guess it makes checks and administration that bit more straightforward, but, as we know, NI players can play for NI with just an Irish passport so long as the IFA otherwise verify their eligibility (that being an official entitlement to British citizenship and satisfying one of the four aforementioned criteria of article 6 with respect to the territory of the IFA).
I would think so, aye.
And it'd be under article 7, Charlie, but I'm guessing you just got mixed up between the numbers. Article 6 is for shared nationalities.
Presumably, if they handed me a passport I'd be acquiring a new nationality and would qualify through article 7.
The point about USA citizenship is that it isn't automatically passed down to children. Criteria have to be met. My father is in the same position as Randolph but he is not a US citizen due to his father not fulfilling the residency criteria. Randolph, on the other hand is as his father must've met the criteria.
Yeah, Article 7. It's been a long day and all the numbers look the same
Something I had published on Goal.com today regarding Frank Feighan's ignorant comments a while back on the entitlement of Irish nationals born north of the border to opt to play for Ireland: http://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/3942/...y?ICID=HP_FT_2
Goal wished to coincide it with the international weekend, so that's the reason for the delay.
I have a more-detailed, unabridged version of the dissection of Feighan's comments here: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com...-all-part-one/
And an analysis of the actual discussion on the matter then at the 50th plenary session of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com...-all-part-two/
There were participants there from both the FAI and IFA.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32099083
There's that ruling again, you know, the one that allows NI born players to choose to play either of the the two teams in Ireland.
It really shouldn't because I've had long enough to get used to it, but their descriptions and explanations always really grate when it comes to them mentioning the eligibility matter. Whoever keeps writing that guff for the BBC, or whoever it was decided that that is how they would consistently explain the eligibility of Irish players, as if there is a specific ruling in place to cover just an Irish situation; it's so obvious it's an interpretation of something they just read or heard from some other ignoramus without doing even the scantest bit of research to actually clarify the governing regulations.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 30/03/2015 at 4:26 AM.
Isn't it largely a convenient (if lazy) shorthand? The GFA confirms a long-existing situation, rather than creating an entitlement. Feighan must know that, but also probably feels he needs to be emollient towards the IFA, NI fans, Unionist politicans and the Belfast media.
Has Feighan made any specific suggestions (eg, 'guys from NI shouldn't play for the Republic', or with qualification 'if they've already played U-19, U-21 or in a friendly up there'). Or is he just throwing out vague platitudes?Depriving players of the choice to play for their country and trying to compel or force them to play for another association with whom they do not identify does nothing to aid relations or reconciliation...[Feighan] talks about “exploratory talks” being needed, as if to suggest this issue is an elephant in the living room. He misinforms us that “[c]alls from Unionist voices for Fifa and the British and Irish Government to intervene on this issue have received little response”. In fact, the situation has already been examined in great detail by football’s governing body
He has a point. Of course the FAI and RoI fans don't HAVE to be sensitive to stop the IFA and NI fans/ politicans/ media gurning, because clearly the latter three groups will gurn anyway. So maybe not so strong a pointFeighan advises us that “the FAI and football community south of the border must be sensitive to the concerns of their counterparts in Belfast”, but this is to completely misunderstand an issue that has been framed by the FAI’s detractors as one involving the “poaching” of northern-born players
Maybe he's more interested in cosying up to his colleagues on the cross-border junket? Also, never underestimate Fine Gael partitionism...Perhaps Feighan genuinely has noble intentions, but his encouragement demonstrates an exceptional lack of sensitivity to the nationalist community - his compatriots - north of the border
The way you characterise it is somewhat exaggerated. Nobody's comparing it to a press gang. NI fans are ****ed off that someone can agree to a call up for a latest cap for us one day, then move to your squad the next.so talk of poaching, as if to suggest the FAI are involved in the illegal theft of unwilling players, is somewhat disingenuous
Government intervention straightforwardly yes; Martin O'Neill agreeing tacitly with Michael that he won't call up Paddy McNair (say) a bit less so. Because it's tacit, it's effectively trivial. So the Law ignores it.Governmental intervention or an internal agreement between the FAI and the IFA with the aim of restricting the selection or switching of Irish nationals born in Northern Ireland by or to the FAI would be in direct contravention of Fifa's rules
I think we've already established any 'deal' couldn't be formalised.
Surely he means effectively all-Unionist fanbase, not players? If so, it's not scaremongering, some exaggeration at worst.The prospect of an all-unionist or all-Protestant community Northern Ireland team simply has not transpired since the headline case of Darron Gibson nearly a decade ago, nor is there any indication that it will. For Feighan to suggest there is "a very real danger that both international football teams on the island might come to represent almost exclusively Nationalist and Unionist communities" is simply baseless scaremongering for which there is absolutely no evidence
Yes, I'm confident her attitude is positive and genuine. But we all know a lot of fans will disagree, while politicans go gombeen and journalists stir the ****.If we are to believe the welcome contribution of Claire Adams at the panel discussion, along with the public utterances of her association in relation to the matter in latter times, the IFA have since come to terms with the reality of the situation once again and have re-acknowledged the right of Irish nationals to opt to play for their country
I've suggested some explanation above. Broadly Frank's motive may be mainly to boost his own career and contacts. He's probably cuter than you give credit. You don't need to over-rate his importance, though.It is therefore puzzling as to why Feighan wishes to re-ignite the flames of this issue at the present moment in time. Sometimes, more so than anything else, it is the misleading comments of misguided politicians that deserve our careful consideration
Danny wins.
So what...
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks