FIFA disciplinary proceedings over 1916 Easter Rising logo.

[DeLorean]

True but I would still consider us to be a bit less guilty for that very reason really.

I saw a suggestion on Facebook that the FAI/Umbro should sell a limited amount of the jerseys with the 1916 crest to cover the fine.

[Fizzer]

I assume the smiley means you're joking Delorean.otherwise we'd be as ignorant and as arrogant as the Brits who decided to plough on regardless. It's a broadly sensible rule albeit difficult to enforce.A small pie in the face of the poppy toting lunatics that have taken over across the water but it should have been a bigger fine.The discouraging of politics from the game in my view makes it a safer sport for the fans to attend even if only very marginally so.im happy to go along with the principle being attempted by FIFA.

[Closed Account]

From my memory, and I can't find any evidence of it, the FAI/Umbro teased a picture of the logo they were going to use on twitter a week at least before the game. An eagle eye/legal eye asked if the were allowed to display the logo on match jerseys.

An official reply said they wouldn't wear them because of UEFA reasons but an Umbro account said they would be wearing them. In my mind, that's fair warning. It's a small fine by FAI standard buy negligence as far as I can see.

[DeLorean]

I assume the smiley means you're joking Delorean.

The smiley was just used to indicate that I didn't take the suggestion too seriously. I agree with your sentiments overall regarding the effort to keep politics out of football. That said, I don't think this was a particularly big deal, which is supported by the fact that nobody (outside of a few north of the border) really batted an eyelid until the it was used as a precedent. It was probably slightly naive or slightly stupid by the FAI not to seek approval from the proper source but no major harm done - small crime, small fine. I do think the UK associations deserved their bigger penalties as it was a more blatant disregard for the instructions they'd been given.

[geysir]

I'm just happy to be wrong on the extent to which the book got thrown at us. We got off very lightly relatively. We're lucky our fine doesn't dwarf the four UK associations fines combined. They appear to have been fined for being defiant where as we appear to have been fined for being a bit thick.

That's nonsense, we were not lucky at all, we were not thick and it wasn't a Fai fiasco.
You're the one who got it wrong re your previous comments about the Fai and Uefa and now you claim it was the Fai being thick and we got lucky.
The Fai's faux pas re political symbols was the minimum that could be made re political symbols that could fall foul of the Uefa regulations, therefore the low fine was appropriate. The FAI took the charge on the chin and accepted responsibility, in contrast to the idiots at the other FA's who couldn't shut up about their right to display their blatantly obvious political symbols and who all went ahead with some sort of display despite obvious questions being asked.

[Lionel Ritchie]

That's nonsense, we were not lucky at all, we were not thick and it wasn't a Fai fiasco.
You're the one who got it wrong re your previous comments about the Fai and Uefa and now you claim it was the Fai being thick and we got lucky.
The Fai's faux pas re political symbols was the minimum that could be made re political symbols that could fall foul of the Uefa regulations, therefore the low fine was appropriate. The FAI took the charge on the chin and accepted responsibility, in contrast to the idiots at the other FA's who couldn't shut up about their right to display their blatantly obvious political symbols and who all went ahead with some sort of display despite obvious questions being asked.

Nothing nonsensical about it Geysir. The FAI had no choice but to take it on the chin. The 1916 yoke is as blatantly obviously a political statement and symbol as any other in this story. They were 100%, unequivocably in the wrong to stick the thing on the jersey. They'd no cards to play in this, no precedent to quote. I acknowledged I'd been wrong about the extent to which the FAI would be punished -at least twice I acknowleged it in fact. But don't be trying to make this out that the FAI were savvy that UEFA couldn't have given a flying one. The FAI, and by the FAI I particularly mean Delaney and his lackeys, showed themselves to be naive to the point of clueless -more interested in bandwagoneering and being seen to be doing something than actually checking what they were or were not allowed do.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't know why you'd ever think someone who made a stupid mistake and didn't ask for permission would be punished more harshly than somebody who was refused permission and said '**** you, we'll do it anyway.'

[Lionel Ritchie]

...exactly because we did it first and set the precedent for others to quote Charlie. That's all.

[Charlie Darwin]

We didn't set any precedent. The only precedent was England getting a special exemption a few years ago. This time they willingly took the **** whereas Ireland's was rightly treated as careless.

[DannyInvincible]

FIFA and the IFAB are set to ratify a rule-change on the wearing of political symbols on jerseys: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41378397

Last week Fifa is understood to have sent out a draft proposal to its member nations with revised provisions that could see the poppy permitted if opposing teams and the competition organiser for the relevant match both accept its use in advance.

The new law is expected to be passed in time for November's international games, which are to be played between 6 and 14 November - a period that incorporates Remembrance weekend.

...

The new wording of Fifa's law tightens the definition of what is deemed a 'political' symbol prohibiting:

• the commemoration of any living or dead person
• political parties or groups
• any local or national government
• discriminatory organisations
• any group whose aims / actions would offend a notable number of people
• any specific political act / event

The International Football Association Board (IFAB), the guardian organisation of the sport's laws, is expected to approve the amendment in early October.

...

It is believed the fines levied against the UK associations last year will not now need to be paid.

I'm not sure if the poppy fiasco and specific pressure from the UK associations provided the direct impetus for this rule-change or whether it was a general change that FIFA were considering introducing anyway, although the British media are certainly portraying the former to be the case.

In fact, the insufferable Telegraph are (as you'd expect) portraying this as FIFA "finally seeing sense" (because they've come round to the British way of thinking, or the right way of thinking, in other words), "backing down" (in the face of superior British moral clout) and "de-politicising the poppy", which isn't really true at all, is it? The poppy will surely still be classified as a political symbol under the new rule (because it is a symbol that commemorates dead persons - which is one of FIFA's defining criteria - and is quite obviously of a political nature anyway); it's just that such symbols can now be permitted so long as the governing body and the two associations involved in a particular game where one wishes to wear a political symbol all agree to its wearing in advance.

Although that does raise the question; why outline "prohibiting" criteria at all if those criteria can simply be over-ruled by way of common agreement between opposing teams and the governing body? Assuming the two opposing associations are happy for a particular political symbol to be worn, what secondary criteria need to be satisfied for the exemption to be granted by the governing body if the primary criteria outlined above won't necessarily apply? On what grounds exactly can the governing body permit a team to wear something that explicitly falls foul of the rule? Will there be any further rule or advice to offer guidance in making such determinations or will it just be a case of the governing body playing it by ear on a case by case basis?

Surely such a prerogative introduces a significant and rather unsatisfactory degree of arbitrariness. For example, without any further guiding criteria, on what rationale could FIFA justify the granting of permission for one team to wear a symbol commemorating dead persons whilst simultaneously refusing to grant permission to another team to wear the symbol of, say, a discriminatory organisation? Or, more specifically, if FIFA are going to grant the British associations an exemption to commemorate British soldiers (who have been the perpetrators of some particularly nasty things down through history, including war crimes), wouldn't FIFA be applying the rule in a capricious, inconsistent and incoherent manner if they were then (hypothetically-speaking) to refuse to grant permission to another team who sought, for whatever reason, to wear symbols commemorating, say, Adolf Hitler or Nazi soldiers? On what credible basis could they justify permitting one whilst disallowing the other?

It's odd too that fines will be retrospectively expunged considering the rule was still broken (very much intentionally) last November. That definitely seems like a cop-out on the part of FIFA alright. Will the FAI's fine for the 1916 logo (which was a rule-breach on account of carelessness rather than intent) be expunged also?

[backstothewall]

any group whose aims / actions would offend a notable number of people

Well that's a can of worms if ever a saw one.

[geysir]

....."de-politicising the poppy", which isn't really true at all, is it? The poppy will surely still be classified as a political symbol under the new rule (because it is a symbol that commemorates dead persons - which is one of FIFA's defining criteria - and is quite obviously of a political nature anyway); it's just that such symbols can now be permitted so long as the governing body and the two associations involved in a particular game where one wishes to wear a political symbol all agree to its wearing in advance.

Although that does raise the question; why outline "prohibiting" criteria at all if those criteria can simply be over-ruled by way of common agreement between opposing teams and the governing body? Assuming the two opposing associations are happy for a particular political symbol to be worn, what secondary criteria need to be satisfied for the exemption to be granted by the governing body if the primary criteria outlined above won't necessarily apply? On what grounds exactly can the governing body permit a team to wear something that explicitly falls foul of the rule? Will there be any further rule or advice to offer guidance in making such determinations or will it just be a case of the governing body playing it by ear on a case by case basis? .....

The poppy is both a commemoration and a charity. I'd assume the charity factor is the one that gets the poppy out of the overt political symbol tag.
The FAI's easter rising commemoration was about an event, a political event of sorts, an attempted coup d'état, no charity involvement.

If wearing the poppy does become Fifa legal, then in theory the FAI could do an easter lily commemoration, similar to the poppy, the easter lily commemorates dead persons and raises money for charitable purposes.

[DannyInvincible]

So is it the case that the poppy will no longer be deemed a political symbol at all, meaning the prohibitive rule will no longer apply to it, or is it the case that the poppy will still be deemed a political symbol under the relevant rule (because it commemorates dead persons), meaning the prohibition will still ordinarily apply, except for instances where the governing body and two opposing associations approve of its wearing?

My understanding, based on a few articles I've read on the matter (BBC, Telegraph and Guardian) is that the latter view is the case.

[geysir]

Then it will dealt with on a case by case issue.

[osarusan]

Well that's a can of worms if ever a saw one.

Agreed, makes a joke of the whole thing. There are definitely a notable number of people in NI who could make a case that they are offended by the aims/actions of the Poppy appeal.

[Mr_Parker]

What many, especially the media, have missed, is that this 'clarification' has been given by the IFAB, not FIFA. The IFAB is made up of 4 FIFA reps and 1 each from the English, Welsh, Scottish FA's and the IFA. So such clarification is not that surprising. Also, the reality that they have actually created a bigger mess hasn't dawned on many.

The northern press have completely missed the issue that this has now compounded for the IFA domestically, as this ruling does not just impact International football, but all levels.

[geysir]

I'd prefer the zero tolerance for any formal/organised on-pitch commemoration which has nothing to do with sport.
The cracks into FIFA's guidelines have been widening of late.
There was a recent disturbing precedent when Australia met Saudi Arabia in an important competitive fixture and permission was given by the Asian federation to hold a minutes silence for 2 Australians killed on the other side of the planet in some profile terrorist attack.
That was a blatant political gesture and one which had all the bigoted right wing political leaders purring out loud. Would they have a minutes silence as a gesture of solidarity for 2 children killed by a drunk driver in Melbourne? I doubt it.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Somewhat connected: Barcelona/Las Palmas played behind closed doors after the violence in the city today. Barca have a Catalunian flag sewn into their shirts, while Las Palmas have a Spanish flag on theirs. La Liga refused to postpone the match at Barca's request, threatened to dock them points: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2017...849-catalonia/