Player eligibility row [Archive] - Page 24

ArdeeBhoy

20/07/2010, 11:28 PM

"I would never repudiate the fact that I am an Irishman" - Ian Paisley, Sunday Life, June 1991.

Couldn't you find a more recent one?? Clearly there's a selective memory about some of his past comments about some of his, 'fellow' Irish!

Would you tell eg a born-and-bred Glaswegian that he cannot be both Scottish and British?
Yes! And plenty who are enlightened beyond a 'slave' mentality would happily welcome it. However being neither Scottish or British,that's up to them.

I find it hard to believe that you lack the basic intelligence, since it is such a simple concept. Perhaps you have such an ingrained sense of anti-Britishness that you are unable to accommodate such a radical idea? Or is it that deep down you do understand it, but cannot bring yourself to admit it publicly (presumably on the basis that it rather tears the arse out of several other of your dearly held prejudices)?

Anyhow, have you forgotten what it states in the GFA, which you otherwise cite approvingly (see The Fly, post #1054)?
Constitutional Issues part 1:

The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish
Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-
Irish Agreement, they will:

...(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to
identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they
may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both

The GFA does NOT "make me Irish". On the basis that I was born and brought up in Ireland, I was Irish long before the GFA was ever even thought of.

Actually, when it comes to being both British and Irish, I can.
So you are now denying the GFA Statement confirms this?

Prior to this and even now in the main, despite yer exortations, still not too many unionists are claiming their Irish heritage....
And given the last time I was in Beal-feirste, certainly few of the locals were, given their flags on display, which barely acknowledged the North, let alone being even in the remotest 'Irish'.

Ever since the playing days of my fellow Fermanaghman, Harry Chatton, it is clear I could have represented the FAI team, neither he nor I needed the GFA to make it so. (And that is quite aside from the fact of my having a Tipperary grandmother and a Leitrim grandfather, though as I have said elsewhere, I wouldn't swap five minutes as substitute for NI in a five goal hammering, for 100 ROI caps and a World Cup winner's medal)

Given neither are even remotely likely, maybe you should reflect on how, er, proud your ancestors would be....

ROI membership of the Commonwealth would offer no chance of a single Irish international team, just as eg membership of the EU offers no prospect of a single European international team.
And the Commonwealth is now the EU??? WTF?

We are often told by proponents of a single Irish team that such a team would be more competitive than two separate teams, therefore more likely to qualify for WC or Euro Finals etc. If so (and I don't necessarily accept it myself), then those other teams which now found it harder to qualify themselves if in the same Group as "Ireland", would likely feel miffed.
Given you keep telling us this will never happen, am surprised you are now acknowledging the concept!!!

Occasionally on another board I've discussed this with a fellow poster from here. He's Irish (from Cork) but has lived abroad, currently in Sweden but mainly Netherlands, since early childhood. A pretty common situation, as you know. He thinks, quite reasonably, that he should have a vote in Irish elections, in parallel with what happens in other countries. But of course if he gets a vote, then potentially I- and hundreds of thousands of others up North- could do, and God knows who we'd drag in...
EG & you keep telling us you're Irish, so it would 'drag' in the population of, er, Ireland!!!
Especially as you claim you're, er, "concerned"?

I think I accused Ardee Bhoy of paranoia, or similar.

Irony alert, part 473

I've always been a republican (usually saying 'abolitionist' to avoid confusion with our shinner friends). I mean, I like that there's a republic in Ireland. It'd be even better if there were two.
Yeah, right. Like anyone'd believe that.
Bad humour alert

And could you stop doing that LOL thing? If we think it�s funny, we�ll tell you.
Irony alert, mocking certain pathetic (& pointless) attempts at 'humour' elsewhere, which should be confined to the trash bin of history!
As in, take a hint FFS.

How is this relevant? The entire British economy is centralised and thus dominated by/ from London.
I don't deny NI's structural problems, but they aren't quite as stark as you suggest.
For example- most obviously- we are only about 2.5% of the population of Britain, thus pretty small beer. And while 70% of the local economy is public sector, it's basically the same in Wales.
Look up the definition of 'colonial outpost', eg. The Falklands, Gibraltar etc That's why it's relevant.
And ultimately why Ireland has resisted the North's financial 'black hole', as it's usually had more than enough of its own monetary issues due to being a far smaller economy.

As opposed to your 100+ semi-coherent posts on the thread, you mean? If you're not interested, don't read them, and obviously don't reply!
Pomposity alert! Not to mention a major case of Hypocrisy?
Or possible irony? Lol.

Still doesn't justify the repeated pointless waffle though.

The IFA's basis for voting had nothing to do with the FAI. Or is this just another of your ****-takes?
Merely relaying the news from the darker side, where the OWB constituency had a collective fit of the giggles about this theory. Which was noticable for not being their usual po-faced selves.

Not true. I've always suggested a personal preference that qualification for international football should be basically through an individual's residence, not his parent or grandparent's birthplace.
So, in the example I mentioned above in reply to Co Down Green, Lee Hodson (Watford defender, aged 19, from Watford) is clearly English. We (IFA) are just exploiting his ancestry. If he chooses to play for us, on the strength of one season in the Champ, he'll likely go straight into the first team squad. Whereas with England, he'd get U-21 caps at best.
'Selective' Amnesia alert. You either want them to play or you don't?

Your "current logic" fails to grasp that they're currently in two different countries, with no comparable situation anywhere else in the World.
Hmm. Take it you noticed the Deutschland example above?
And that was two halves of the same country, ideologically far more different that even the most ardent republicans and loyalists.

Am I allowed one of those 'Lol' things??

It doesn't. Whatever the GFA's worth and significance, it doesn't make EG or me Irish. We've always been Irish.
So you no longer claim to be British? When are you getting Irish citizenship??

Picking Darron Gibson no more makes the FAI the governing body in Derry, than giving Liam Lawrence the place alongside him puts them in charge in Sherwood Forest.
Eh?

"It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born on the Island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation" no longer applies- it was replaced following a referendum a few years ago in which nearly 80% of voters denied that birthright/ nationhood to other Irish-born children in future. Sorry to labour the point, but it's a bit puzzling how many of you lot think just quoting from the Constitution clinches everything.
Next you'll be telling us the Brits (& the rest of the EU) also give citizenship to everyone born in their territories.
Anyway, we've already said, we're preparing the ground for a large influx of dysfunctional aliens with a penchant for orange.....

Er, there are two Irish nations. Anyway, FIFA seem(ed) to manage quite well with two or three Korean, Danish, German teams etc. etc. Not to mention four from Britain.
Denmark has 2 teams?? And the Isle Of Man, now??

DannyInvincible

20/07/2010, 11:54 PM

Denmark has 2 teams??

The Faroe Islands are an autonomous region of Denmark.

DannyInvincible

21/07/2010, 3:58 AM

The GFA does NOT "make me Irish". On the basis that I was born and brought up in Ireland, I was Irish long before the GFA was ever even thought of.

Not to deny you your inherent and long-standing sense of Irishness - and I'm genuinely not attempting to cause offence or have a dig here by suggesting there's an "official Irish" and what you sense to be Irish - but, surely, let's be honest that there is a distinction between your concept and the status of Irishness accorded to persons of Irish nationality, at least on a legal-constitutional basis. You're referring to what 'OneRedArmy' astutely refers to as a "state of mind" whilst the Good Friday Agreement refers to and invokes the latter. You might even refer to this "state of mind" as "Northern Irish", to be more accurate, seeing as you view the British and not the Irish nation as the custodian of your identity and interests, right?

just as eg membership of the EU offers no prospect of a single European international team.

Not yet anyway...

For what seems like the nth. time, let me restate my consistently held position, as outlined here and elsewhere.
1. Until the recent definitive* statement by FIFA, I felt that this issue was capable of going either way (IFA or FAI);
2. Since that statement, I have accepted FIFA's stance (i.e. FAI permitted to select NI-born players, outwith the usual parentage/residence criteria);
3. My acceptance that this is the case should not be confused with my personal opinion that it ought not to be the case (i.e. I feel that FIFA has erred in interpreting/applying its regulations etc).
Simple enough?

* - Subject to appeal to CAS etc

You see, the problem with your position is that it isn't actually that simple at all. In fact, points two and three directly contradict one another. Actually, point three appears to even contradict itself. I'd imagine that's why you have to keep re-stating it. You genuinely confuse people. How can you accept FIFA's stance and believe that the FAI are permitted to select northern-born Irish nationals if you simultaneously believe that FIFA are erring in their interpretation or application of their own rules? If you admitted that FIFA were interpreting their rules correctly, but that your opinion was that these rules required amending in the interests of what you view to be fair and just, people would have a lot less trouble taking you seriously. For a start, you wouldn't come across as so stubbornly insincere/confused.

I'm pretty sure honesty would be appreciated and whilst we might have different views and perspectives on what might be "fair" here and whatnot, from my experience, there is some sympathy on this board for the notion that the IFA have the potential to suffer to quite a significant degree as regards their expenditure on youth development due to the FIFA statutes and that maybe some change could be made somewhere - be that to FIFA's rules or to the FAI's policy - to "rectify" this apparent injustice. Coming across as an intolerant curmudgeon does nothing to help your case. You have to admit, first and foremost, that the rules as they currently stand unquestionably establish eligibility for northern-born Irish nationals, thus permitting the FAI's selection of such players. Otherwise you're just deluding yourself, but I suppose blind loyalty dictates that you gotta do what you gotta do...

The same applies to the IFA. Engaging in vindictive legal proceedings against the FAI is not conducive to creating an atmosphere where the FAI might volunteer something of substance to assuage IFA grievances. Personally, I wouldn't object to the idea of the FAI funding their own training camps in nationalist areas within NI, but I suppose you'd throw it out the window as a preposterous suggestion... The thing is, also, that northern-born kids who would start out playing under the auspices of the FAI, benefiting from their training camps and such or whatever, could still potentially make a switch to NI a few years down the line.

But consider these two possible future scenarios:
1. A child is born and brought up in NI to Polish parents and the FAI wants to cap him. Since the latest changes to the Irish Constitution, he is not automatically entitled to Irish nationality from birth (nor his parents/grandparents, obviously), therefore the FAI should not be permitted to select him. Meanwhile, they could, presumably, select eg Mark Lawrenson's English born-and-bred nephew, who may be about as "Irish" as David Cameron;
2. Somewhere in eg Estonia, a child is born and given a Russian name by his ethnic Russian parents, grows up speaking Russian, living in a Russian enclave and being educated in Russian. Yet if none of his parents/grandparents was born in Russia/USSR, he will only be entitled to play for Estonia, not "his" country, Russia.

Imo, by using the "Nationality from Birth" test to get around the Brazil/Qatari problem, FIFA has been caught out by the Irish nationality anomaly and risks either being similarly caught out by future anomalies, or proves inconsistent by refusing to apply it to cases analogous to that of eg Estonia/Russia (above).

I'm not sure what the relevance of either of these scenarios is seeing as neither bear any relation to the issue here. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the first. Such a player wouldn't be eligible to represent Ireland - you're correct - but what of it? It's not an issue. I don't think anyone is arguing that he should be eligible. Or is that you're arguing he should be eligible if their was to be some consistency demonstrated in something here? I'm genuinely not sure. There is no anomaly there and everything is consistent with the meaning Irish nationality law has for the application of FIFA's eligibility rules here. I'll assume the reference to Mark Lawrenson's nephew is a joke. Although I just can't be sure as I'm not certain how to take you. Is it supposed to be an analogous comparison to something? :confused:

As for the second, it most certainly isn't analogous to the Irish situation, to the best of my limited knowledge anyway. I admit, haven't a clue what the exact legal status is of Estonian-born ethnic/cultural Russians, if they have any distinct legal status at all, but I'm not aware that Russia offers permanent citizenship by simple virtue of their birth alone. I'm only basing that on my belief that Ireland's nationality laws are globally unique, having attempted to do a bit of research on any possible analogous situations a few months ago and having turned up nothing, but maybe I didn't look hard enough. Mind you, I noted your staunch objection on OWC recently to North Korean nationals born in Japan representing North Korea. I can't say that your argument appeared anything but absurd to me. Anyway, back to the Estonian example you've raised. If Russia did offer such legal recognition in the vein of which I mention above, which is the fundamental element here - stop pretending you don't see it - that would be analogous and I'm sure we'd see Estonian-born ethnic/cultural Russians representing Russia if they were able and talented enough to do so, as that would be entirely within the scope of article 15.

By the way, why do you suspect FIFA have been "caught out"? Caught out by themselves, is it? :rolleyes:

You misunderstand the remit of the IFAB, which is to determine the playing rules of the game only (eg offside, substitutes, goalline technology etc) i.e. it plays no part whatever in the Constitutional governance of FIFA (inc international eligibility criteria).

(Incidentally, the other 202 Member Associations must presumably be happy enough with the four British Associations' special position on the IFAB, since it is open to them to change it with a simple vote at Congress etc)

I see. They must wield an extraordinary amount of influence via other methods then so? ;)

DannyInvincible

21/07/2010, 4:24 AM

Actually, just on that hypothetical NI-born kid of Polish parents, he might be eligible to play for us via article 17(a). After all, Alex Bruce seems to be eligible to play for us via article 17(c), although, as I've discussed with you earlier in this thread, I don't see how the text, if it's to be read literally, actually generates Bruce's eligibility. I actually do think the IFA would have a serious case in this instance, unless FIFA do interpret the FAI's territory as occupying the whole island.

FIFA mandates the FAI to use the title "ROI" for all official purposes, such as Match Programmes: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BIS_R7_5YVU/RkN16fhZLCI/AAAAAAAAA6g/21e-qxzRPeM/s200/FR+1999-05-29+Rep+Ireland+Away.jpg
However, I was merely pointing out that when they can get away with it (eg own website), the FAI tries to deny it. This is disingenuous imo.

Well, having had a look at the website, they do appear to use "Republic of Ireland" in fixture lists and article texts, whilst using "Ireland" in the team's crest, page headings and headlines. (Although, outside of competition, I'm pretty sure they could use "Idi Amin's Uganda" if they wanted...) It's not that disingenuous, surely, given that "Ireland" is actually the full title of the state they represent.

If* either Association has the right to use the name "Ireland", it must be the IFA, since we were the original Ireland, as reflected in FIFA's determination in 1953.

You can't say, if either association has the right to use the name, it logically follows that it must be the IFA simply because they were the original bearer of the name. Circumstances change over time. Wouldn't that be like, say, the Czech Republic putting forward some absurd argument that if anyone had the right to continue using the name "Czechoslovakia", it would be them, as ridiculous and unlikely as that sounds? It would only serve to give the incorrect impression in a contemporary context. On the other hand, the FAI using "Ireland" doesn't give an incorrect impression at all.

Er, we don't, which is why we no longer use it (Duh!).

Fine. It's just you stated that the IFA "declined" to use it, as if to suggest the IFA were actively opting against what might otherwise have been a realistic possibility, or were restraining themselves, even, from using the name in order to adhere to some FIFA stipulation. Why use it up to 1980 though? I find that puzzling, even if the IFA were the original bearers of the name. If you're going to accuse the FAI of insincerity, in spite of the fact it is the representative association of the state of Ireland, can you at least be consistent in argument and admit that the IFA's usage up until 1980 might just have been a bit disingenuous?

The reason why it so grates with NI fans etc is that the FAI calling themselves "Ireland" implies that theirs is somehow "the" (official) Irish team, with NI having some sort of lesser status.

Not at all. I must put your aggravation down to paranoia or something. ;) The usage simply implies that they are the football governing body representing Ireland. You're reading into it too much.

To which my reply would be "P1ss Off" - ours is every bit as proud and legitimate a team as yours, with a longer history.

Of course. But who is denying it? Not a bulk of posters here and most certainly not the FAI. Wee bit of an insecurity complex maybe? I can congratulate you if that would ease your fears...

Besides, if as you say, the issue of naming is "no big deal", then why cannot the FAI and its fans etc accept the name "ROI" for their team, as mandated by the governing body?

Well, I don't think anyone here really is making a big deal about it. People will call their team "Ireland" out of convenience and because it's what they've always known, seeing as they, naturally enough, treat the team as being an "off-shoot" or sporting representative of the nation they know to be Ireland. It's just how it is. Nothing malicious intended by it, and when we must use "Republic of Ireland" - beyond the FAI happily doing so - I don't think anyone else really bats an eyelid; a nonchalant acceptance, you could say. You're the one who seems a bit irritated by it all.

ArdeeBhoy

21/07/2010, 7:14 AM

Another fine post there DI, but whatever rational points you say, they'd never agree!
Not very 'Irish', hmm?

ifk101

21/07/2010, 7:22 AM

There are any number of anomalies in the way FIFA manages its affairs. However, the key difference between the two under discussion (4 UK teams and FAI eligibility advantage) is that the four British Associations were granted their privilege in return for saving FIFA from bankruptcy.

Jingoism is alive and well. Rubbish btw. There's a quite simple reason as to why the 4 British associations were admitted to FIFA. It's right under your nose.

Whereas neither the Irish Government nor the FAI did anything for FIFA to earn their privilege.

???? What will FIFA think of next? Allowing Irish nationals to represent their country. Tut tut.

Would that be a Gentlemens' Agreement? If so, no thanks - we lost out the last time we trusted someone over one of those...

Another figment of your imagination. And more drivel lacking foundation. When ask to provide sources you invaribaly ignore these quests. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Anyhow, I have no more desire to see a single UK team than I have a single Irish team.

Preferably I'd rather the IFA joined with the British associations than with us.

But consider these two possible future scenarios:
1. A child is born and brought up in NI to Polish parents and the FAI wants to cap him. Since the latest changes to the Irish Constitution, he is not automatically entitled to Irish nationality from birth (nor his parents/grandparents, obviously), therefore the FAI should not be permitted to select him.

In this scenario, he could acquire British nationality and be eligible to represent the North based on Article 16. He's not eligible to play for Ireland.

Meanwhile, they could, presumably, select eg Mark Lawrenson's English born-and-bred nephew, who may be about as "Irish" as David Cameron;

Article 16.

2. Somewhere in eg Estonia, a child is born and given a Russian name by his ethnic Russian parents, grows up speaking Russian, living in a Russian enclave and being educated in Russian. Yet if none of his parents/grandparents was born in Russia/USSR, he will only be entitled to play for Estonia, not "his" country, Russia.

Unless there is international recognition of his Russian nationality, then yes he can only represent Estonia. Interesting your concern here given how quickly the North's followers are so quick to belittle the FAI's use of the granny rule.

Imo, by using the "Nationality from Birth" test to get around the Brazil/Qatari problem, FIFA has been caught out by the Irish nationality anomaly and risks either being similarly caught out by future anomalies, or proves inconsistent by refusing to apply it to cases analogous to that of eg Estonia/Russia (above).

In your opinion. But the IFA is seeking to uphold the current application of FIFA's eligibility statutes so obviously they do not share your opinion.

Nedser

21/07/2010, 7:39 AM

As I say, you may call your country whatever you like, according to your political preferences/prejudices, just as I shall continue to call it what I like, according to mine.

The name I use for my country does not just suit my political preferences. For the umpteenth time, it is the official, internationally recognised name for the country and thus, by any objective assessment, the "correct" name, to use your own term. But I've already said I don't care if others refuse to use the official name for my country. If you could make the same allowance for those of us who choose not to use FIFA's name for our national football team, we can move on.

But this is a Football Forum, and when it comes to the naming of the two Irish International Football teams, it is not a question of choice (preferred or prejudiced), it is a question of fact. That is, the authoritative body, FIFA, has mandated that the two teams shall be called "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland".

Sorry, this is sheer hypocrisy. You're saying we have a choice on whether to use the official name for the country but we have no such choice when it comes to the name of the football team?!!! Give us a break.

I don't know whether it was without precedent (and neither do you, I suspect), but it was certainly not without subsequent parallels - eg Taiwan/China or the two Koreas.

Why I'm bothering with this I don't know, but ..........

The football teams representing the two Koreas are known by FIFA as "Korea Republic" (South) and "Korea Democratic People's Republic" (North) - which are the offical names of the two countries. If FIFA were to be consistent with this, the two teams on our island would be called "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland".

With regard to Taiwan, there is no internationally accepted name for that country - in fact, most other countries don't even recognise that such a state exists. It's also not a UN member, so we can't look there for an internationally accepted name either. That being the case, you can't say FIFA imposed a name that is different to the internationally accepted name.

I guess that's one definition of "objective".
Anyhow, here's mine:
1. For 73 years from 1880, there was a Football Association ("Irish Football Association") whose team called itself "Ireland", entirely legitimately;
2. Meanwhile in 1921, a grouping broke away from the IFA, styling itself the "FAIFS" and its team "Irish Free State";
3. Nearly 30 years later on, the FAIFS elected to rename itself the FAI and unilaterally call its team "Ireland", following political developments within its own juridiction;
4. By 1953 FIFA, when confronted by the contradictory and confusing situation of two teams calling themselves "Ireland" entering the same World Cup, determined that the IFA must alter its name to "Northern Ireland" (for competition purposes only*), with the FAI to adopt the name "Republic of Ireland";
5. Subsequently the IFA continues to abide by the ruling, whereas the FAI resists doing so.

How was it legitimate for the IFA to call its team Ireland after partition? International football teams are supposed to represent countries, so when the political circumstances/borders/names of countries change, so too do the names of their football teams. There are loads of parallels on this one – countries have been carved up throughout Europe, and AFAIK no FA has ever been allowed to continue using the name of the “old” country, even if they had been using that name for decades before.

For example, the FA based in Belgrade can’t call their team Yugoslavia anymore, even though they probably wish they could. And if you’re looking for a “parallel”, the original Yugoslav FA, which first entered a team known as “Yugoslavia” in international competition, was based in Zagreb (now Croatia). That didn’t stop a different FA, based in what subsequently became a different country, using the same name for their international team in more recent years.

The bottom line is, countries’ borders and the names that go with them are subject to change. The only workable solution is for names of international teams to be based on the current name of the country they represent. As far as I can tell, that is the approach FIFA take in general, but they made an exception when they refused to allow the FAI to name their team after the country it represents.

DannyInvincible

21/07/2010, 7:51 AM

See my post #1123 (above)

Cheers for the added direction there. I mightn't have known where to go rooting around for post #1123 otherwise… Anyway, I've responded to that in post #1154 (above).

It was the FAI which originally complained about the IFA picking Southern players, leading to the "Gentlemens' [sic] Agreement whereby each Association would not pick each other's players. The FAI then unilaterally went back on their word. Even then, they assured the IFA that they would not make the first approach. They broke their word again. Worse still, they only approach NI players with a Nationalist background, thereby leading more closely to a situation whereby the FAI is seen as being the Nationalist Irish team (or "Catholic" team, if you're Shane Duffy) and the IFA as being the Unionist Irish team. (I personally despise this last aspect of the FAI's underhand behaviour most of all, btw)

"A gentleman’s agreement is an agreement which is not an agreement, made between two persons neither of whom is a gentleman, whereby each expects the other to be strictly bound without himself being bound at all." - Harry Vaisey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Vaisey).

Besides, was it not FIFA who dictated that the IFA stop calling up players from south of the border? Is this supposed gentlemen's agreement even documented? I always hear of it in articles – journalists are commonly lazy researchers, however - and it's bandied about by yourself on here, but I've never actually seen proof from a reliable source that one ever existed. It might as well possess a certain mythical status by now, it's the type of thing that could become a truth in itself over a few decades of pub-talk. There was no mention of it by Boyce in 1999, when surely it would have been quite appropriate to highlight it if it was still supposed to be "in effect", although, obviously, I do recognise that quoted snippet was rather brief and didn't necessarily amount to everything he had to say on the matter. That isn't a denial that it ever existed either, by the way. It just seems like an odd arrangement.

What would the FAI stand to gain from such a one-sided, no-strings-attached agreement anyway? A sense of moral decency or something?... Were the IFA bound by any terms at all? It doesn’t appear they were as FIFA had already dictated they weren't permitted to call up players from south of the border anyway. Willingly entering into or maintaining wholly self-detrimental agreements doesn't strike me as all-that-conventional human behaviour. The idea that our beloved FAI would do something of the sort... even more preposterous! Surely something so voluntary and unenforceable ought to be entirely and one-sidedly re-negotiable at any time anyway.

Admittedly, I’m quoting Wikipedia here, but it seems to offer cited evidence contrary to the idea of there being a gentlemen’s agreement between the two associations. It appears that it was FIFA who stepped in. The FAI’s article features the following:

Shortly after the IFA rejoined FIFA in 1946, the FAI stopped selecting Northern players. The IFA stopped selecting southern players after the FAI complained to FIFA in 1950.

Meanwhile, the article on the Ireland national football team (1982-1950) features the following:

The FAI took steps to prevent players from what was now the Republic of Ireland turning out for the IFA's Ireland team. All UK-based players from the Republic were pressured to sign an undertaking not to play for the IFA. Jackie Carey was the last to comply, in April 1950. Rule 35(b) of the FAI articles provided that players based in the Republic would be denied clearance certificates for transfers abroad unless they gave a similar undertaking. The IFA complained to FIFA; in April 1951, FIFA replied that the FAI rule 35(b) was contrary to its regulations, but also that the IFA team could not select "citizens of Eire". An exception was for British Home Championship games, as a 1923 IFAB agreement at Liverpool prevented FIFA intervention in relations between the four Home Nations. However, the exception would only apply "if the F.A. of Ireland do not object", and was never availed of.

IFA and FAI teams both continued to compete as Ireland. At FIFA's 1953 congress, its Rule 3 was amended so that an international team must use "that title ... recognised politically and geographically of the countries or territories". The FAI initially claimed Rule 3 gave them the right to the name Ireland, but FIFA subsequently ruled neither team could be referred to as Ireland, decreeing that the FAI team be officially designated as the Republic of Ireland, while the IFA team was to become Northern Ireland. The IFA objected and in 1954 was permitted to continue using the name Ireland in Home Internationals, based on the 1923 agreement. This practice was discontinued in the late 1970s.

Even if one did exist, dismissing a supposed gentlemen's agreement isn't an inherently shameful thing to do. Especially if it was an "agreement" as one-sided as the one alleged to have been in place between the FAI and the IFA. Plus, circumstances and mindsets will always change over time. It could be argued that you should be thankful the FAI bothered with maintaining an unenforceable agreement at all for so long.

Anyhow, the crux of it remains that the FAI are perfectly entitled to give northern-born Irish nationals the opportunity to represent us under current FIFA rules. Why would you seek to deny these individuals this entitlement by telling them they may think they’re Irish but that you’re going to support the IFA in making them play for a British team? That appears undeniably and inflexibly unionist, which I don’t think is such a good image for the IFA in this day and age. Why should the FAI seek to deny them this, even? I'd be naturally disappointed in those running the FAI if they were to dismiss the enthusiastic desire of a northern-born Irish national to represent us. Surely, in the interests of cross-community relations and recognition, you can view this in a positive light and be happy for young nationalists in NI that they have this opportunity to express their Irish identity... I'd understand and find more acceptable FIFA acting to our detriment, but expecting the FAI to voluntarily make things more difficult for themselves is just daft.

I hate to point this out to you again, but didn't Alan Kernaghan, of Ulster Protestant background, line out for us in the mid-90s? So much for the "sectarian FAI"... I don't suspect, however, that there would be too many of similar background to Kernaghan who'd rather represent us if simultaneously given the opportunity to represent Northern Ireland, as Kernaghan was denied. I don't think that's a sectarian assumption to make either. Surely, it's just recognition of the obvious general reality. Would you rather that, if the FAI were going to approach players anyway, that they pointlessly approach players you could easily assume would be uninterested due to their background revealing a wholly British identity as well? :rolleyes:

As for the snide and continual sullying of Shane Duffy's character over an innocent - but misrepresented - comment he made during an interview in which he was presumably asked to explain why he had decided to play for us and attempted to do so by indicating a socio-cultural reality in Northern Irish society (that being, that those from the Catholic community - as historians, sociologists, those inhabiting the statelet and you-name-it, et cetera, have long referred to the nationalist community - generally identify as Irish; that, of course, being the legally-recognised sense of Irishness that affiliates itself with the nation of Ireland), I don't have much time for it. It's been pointed out by both myself and 'Predator' already as to why there was clearly no sectarian intent behind it.

Also, you're still speaking in the language of underhand targeting and poaching. It's difficult to take you seriously when you do that.

Due to a political/Government policy on Nationality etc, over which the IFA has no influence whatever, we have a situation whereby a neighbouring Association is entitled to pick NI-born players, whereas we cannot pick ROI-born players. Regardless of the FAI's technical right to do so, if you cannot see why this should irk the IFA/NI team and its fans, then you are either very blinkered or in denial.

All nationality laws worldwide are governed by political/governmental policy. Likewise, the FAI have no influence whatsoever over this either. Furthermore, not all persons born in NI will seek to exercise their birthright to Irish citizenship. The way you protest about this so incessantly, you'd nearly think the FAI were manipulating government policy or there was some political conspiracy or interference in the running of the FAI. What gives less validity to your argument, is that the nationality laws you refer to are bilaterally agreed by the state to which NI is party, as well as being consented to, and thereby vindicated, by a democratic majority of the population within NI. The Good Friday Agreement wasn't drawn up by the Irish state alone, you know?

You don't seek to pick players from south of the border anyway. Sure didn't Blatter - in a way only a buffoon of his enormity could - offer such a compromise to the IFA and it was rejected, so I don't know why you mention that specifically. Similarly, you aren't permitted to call up, say, Spanish nationals in the same way you aren't permitted to call up Irish nationals from the south; it's because they don't qualify for British citizenship. Neither is it an "anomaly" or an "unearned privilege" that the FAI be permitted to call up northern-born Irish nationals. It's a reasonable expectation; a natural consequence of the concept of Irish nationhood.

DannyInvincible

21/07/2010, 8:28 AM

Sorry, this is sheer hypocrisy. You're saying we have a choice on whether to use the official name for the country but we have no such choice when it comes to the name of the football team?!!! Give us a break.

Ha! Good spot. That genuinely must be one of the wildest and most brazen examples of hypocrisy I've seen since about EalingGreen's post before that. :D

The bottom line is, countries’ borders and the names that go with them are subject to change. The only workable solution is for names of international teams to be based on the current name of the country they represent. As far as I can tell, that is the approach FIFA take in general, but they made an exception when they refused to allow the FAI to name their team after the country it represents.

This is correct. Check out the second paragraph of the two from Wikipedia I quoted in the middle of my last post. It's of significant relevance.

OneRedArmy

21/07/2010, 8:56 AM

The historical inconsistencies above that allowed Northern Ireland favourable treatment at the expense of the Republic are directly related to the 40 year period that renowned champion of equal rights, Harry Cavan, sat on various FIFA Committees and Boards, and exercised an undue influence, right up to his ten years as Vice-President. We need not forgot that it was he who tried most to cancel the All Ireland/Shamrock Rovers Select XI vs Brazil friendly, presumably for "slippy slope" reasons in relation to a unified team taking the pitch under the name Ireland.

Viewed in this context, the FAI's recent actions can be seen as an attempt to even things up.

ifk101

21/07/2010, 9:21 AM

Viewed in this context, the FAI's recent actions can be seen as an attempt to even things up.

Not too sure what you mean by this. What recent actions by the FAI can be perceived as an attempt to even things up?

OneRedArmy

21/07/2010, 9:46 AM

Not too sure what you mean by this. What recent actions by the FAI can be perceived as an attempt to even things up?Calling up players who previously representing Northern Ireland at underage level. What did you think I was referring to?!

ifk101

21/07/2010, 9:49 AM

Calling up players who previously representing Northern Ireland at underage level. What did you think I was referring to?!

I thought you were suggesting something that could be perceived as underhanded.

ArdeeBhoy

21/07/2010, 10:12 AM

Calling up players who previously representing Northern Ireland at underage level. What did you think I was referring to?!

Except them, as with any country, are eligible to switch if applicable, until they receive a full competitive cap.

Gather round

21/07/2010, 10:16 AM

I said it [Scottishness] was a state of mind, not that its imaginary or made up. The point was to highlight that there's a world of difference when comparing a country that is able to issue passports and is recognised by the UN as a state, versus a consituent part of another state

Right, with you now. For a moment I thought you were having a gentle dig at Britain having more than one international team. If there's a World of difference, I doubt if it's quite in the way you suggest. Compare Scotland, or Bavaria, or Flanders, say, with San Marino or Liechtenstein.

I find it hard to believe Northern Ireland "saved" FIFA (I find it even harder to believe it's in any way relevant). When you factor in the level to which FIFA facilitated Harry Cavan feathering his own bed (see "Foul" for more info), I'd say on balance the IFA was a taker than a giver

Agreed it's not really that relevant. Northern Ireland and England have separate international sides not because they paid off 3% and 83% of FIFA's overdraft (or whatever it was). But basically because a) they always have, and b) hardly anyone else is bothered by this, bar a few stirrers on Republic of Ireland supporter boards.

Do you have a link for the Foul story? Although Harry Cavan's slightly before my time, I used to have the Foul compendium reissued by When Saturday Comes in the early 90s (?)

The historical inconsistencies above that allowed Northern Ireland favourable treatment at the expense of the Republic are directly related to the 40 year period that renowned champion of equal rights, Harry Cavan, sat on various FIFA Committees and Boards, and exercised an undue influence, right up to his ten years as Vice-President

What favourable treatment did we get at your expense for 40 years (or even less than that)?

We need not forgot that it was he who tried most to cancel the All Ireland/Shamrock Rovers Select XI vs Brazil friendly, presumably for "slippy slope" reasons in relation to a unified team taking the pitch under the name Ireland

Aye, terrible. He was worried about a threat to the NI team. What an absolute bounder the bloke must have been.

Viewed in this context, the FAI's recent actions can be seen as an attempt to even things up

And there was me thinking those actions were in the context of recruiting some more decent players and thus improving disappointing results.

I'm genuinely not attempting to cause offence or have a dig here by suggesting there's an "official Irish" and what you sense to be Irish

None taken. But if you are suggesting that, then quite simply you are just as wrong as Ardee Troll, the Fly and other posters who think unionists are somehow less Irish, or not Irish at all. I'm sure I speak for EG and other NI fans on the thread- our sense of being Irish comes from and is er, being from Ireland. It's perfectly simple.

but, surely, let's be honest that there is a distinction between your concept and the status of Irishness accorded to persons of Irish nationality, at least on a legal-constitutional basis

I've no problem with you distinguishing between concepts, statuses (stati?) legal this and constitutional that. Because really they're just convoluted ways of distinguishing between er, nationalists and unionists. Neither is inherently more or less Irish than the other.They're not really even differently Irish. Both coming from Ireland, like.

You're referring to what 'OneRedArmy' astutely refers to as a "state of mind" whilst the Good Friday Agreement refers to and invokes the latter. You might even refer to this "state of mind" as "Northern Irish", to be more accurate, seeing as you view the British and not the Irish nation as the custodian of your identity and interests, right?

No, wrong. The British part of my identity doesn't contradict the Irish part. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. As for the custodian of my interests, whatever that means- beyond what people say on this thread, how would you know what they are?

from my experience, there is some sympathy on this board for the notion that the IFA have the potential to suffer to quite a significant degree as regards their expenditure on youth development due to the FIFA statutes and that maybe some change could be made somewhere - be that to FIFA's rules or to the FAI's policy - to "rectify" this apparent injustice

Indeed. So how about both FAI and IFA agreeing that they won't select any players who've already appeared as adults (ie, age 18) for the other's teams?

Personally, I wouldn't object to the idea of the FAI funding their own training camps in nationalist areas within NI, but I suppose you'd throw it out the window as a preposterous suggestion...

Although I'll admit to not welcoming it, it's hardly preposterous. Although possibly not the best use of the FAI's resources. I mean, you will probably continue to get more players from England than Derry, Newry or Twinbrook, so why not set up the training camps there?

I don't think anyone is arguing that [EG's notional Belfast-born Pole not eligible to play for either NI or RoI under current rules] should be eligible

I am. A 20 year old wunderkind who's lived in Rathcoole throughout should be able to play for NI. He's as Irish as Jonny Evans regardless of passport carried.

OneRedArmy

21/07/2010, 10:27 AM

I thought you were suggesting something that could be perceived as underhanded.No, fully behind the FAI exercising their rights. My overall point is that it is completely hypocritical for the IFA to accept their "special treatment" by FIFA which ensures their existance as an international football team, whilst at the same time denying the FAI the right to pick Irish citizen's who want to play for Ireland. Its having your cake and eating it. They got away with in Harry Cavan's day because of his influence with FIFA, but that time has passed.

FIFA's rules have a host of exceptions, inconsistencies and the like, which is fitting for the most politically corrupt of institutions. If you open the lid on one, you risk the potential for a protracted period of whataboutery in relation to various compromises and sidebar deals. It will be interesting to see when Sepp goes, if a non UEFA delegate were to take over, particularly an African or Asian, whether they would seek to chip away at the European powerbase.

Gather round

21/07/2010, 11:38 AM

FIFA's rules have a host of exceptions, inconsistencies and the like, which is fitting for the most politically corrupt of institutions. If you open the lid on one, you risk the potential for a protracted period of whataboutery in relation to various compromises and sidebar deals

Aye, but I'd say the corruption comes from the nature, size and scale of the organisation. Is FIFA that much more corrupt than the United Nations, IOC etc?

It will be interesting to see when Sepp goes, if a non UEFA delegate were to take over, particularly an African or Asian, whether they would seek to chip away at the European powerbase

If it was Hayatou, Chung or Warner (the three non-European FIFA politicians who seem to appear most often in the British media), that could be interesting. How do you see any of them doing that- more and bigger World Cups in Africa, more CONCACAF teams in the finals, no international status for England or Faroe Islands?

OneRedArmy

21/07/2010, 11:46 AM

Aye, but I'd say the corruption comes from the nature, size and scale of the organisation. Is FIFA that much more corrupt than the United Nations, IOC etc?FIFA are certainly up there with the IOC. It goes with members having equal votes yet vast inequalities of wealth and a game that is one of the world's biggest and wealthiest industries. Huge blame goes to Adidas, Puma, Reebok and Nike for fostering it.

If it was Hayatou, Chung or Warner (the three non-European FIFA politicians who seem to appear most often in the British media), that could be interesting. How do you see any of them doing that- more and bigger World Cups in Africa, more CONCACAF teams in the finals, no international status for England or Faroe Islands?The 4 "home nations" each having a team and a vote obviously works strongly in favour of the UEFA-bloc vis-a-vis the other confederations and therefore will be supported by all UEFA members at a minimum. But anything is possible, although a very remote possibility.

Warner is a crook, plain and simple, God forbid he gets any more senior that he already is.

Den Perry

21/07/2010, 12:50 PM

:D[QUOTE=EalingGreen;1378171]fact of my having a Tipperary grandmother

I knew we had something in common......

Gather round

21/07/2010, 1:23 PM

The 4 "home nations" each having a team and a vote obviously works strongly in favour of the UEFA-bloc vis-a-vis the other confederations and therefore will be supported by all UEFA members at a minimum. But anything is possible, although a very remote possibility

The British/ Danish/ UEFA bloc votes aren't that significant. The West Indies (which plays as one team in international cricket) has 11 votes in CONCACAF. Jamaica, Barbados, Montserrat etc. all having one each.

OneRedArmy

21/07/2010, 1:33 PM

The British/ Danish/ UEFA bloc votes aren't that significant. The West Indies (which plays as one team in international cricket) has 11 votes in CONCACAF. Jamaica, Barbados, Montserrat etc. all having one each.Again, comparison with sovereign states isn't relevant, nor is the West Indies comparison. I might as well bring up the Irish rugby, hockey, golf teams if we're going to use the Windies as an example....!

The Fly

21/07/2010, 2:21 PM

Gather round

21/07/2010, 2:32 PM

Again, comparison with sovereign states isn't relevant, nor is the West Indies comparison. I might as well bring up the Irish rugby, hockey, golf teams if we're going to use the Windies as an example....!

It's perfectly relevant (indeed a direct answer) to your earlier point about Britain/ UEFA having three extra 'bloc' votes from non-sovereign countries. CONCACAF has far more of a similar bloc vote, simply because it has more micro-countries than Europe does. Micro-countries which combine in other international sport. I'd assumed (it seems wrongly) that we'd moved on to a discussion of FIFA politicking generally, rather than just going over the British anomaly over and over again.

Bring up the Irish rugby or cricket teams if you like. As you suggest, they're anomalies which seem to work- although as you might guess I'd prefer to support a purely Northern Ireland cricket side.

The historical inconsistencies above that allowed Northern Ireland favourable treatment at the expense of the Republic are directly related to the 40 year period that renowned champion of equal rights, Harry Cavan, sat on various FIFA Committees and Boards, and exercised an undue influence, right up to his ten years as Vice-President

What favourable treatment did we get at your expense for 40 years (or even less than that)?

OneRedArmy

21/07/2010, 3:09 PM

It's perfectly relevant (indeed a direct answer) to your earlier point about Britain/ UEFA having three extra 'bloc' votes from non-sovereign countries. CONCACAF has far more of a similar bloc vote, simply because it has more micro-countries than Europe does. Micro-countries which combine in other international sport. I'd assumed (it seems wrongly) that we'd moved on to a discussion of FIFA politicking generally, rather than just going over the British anomaly over and over again.For the purposes of this thread, I don't think anyone will move on until either the IFA back down or FIFA change the rules.

I'm also not sure what a micro-country is, are they less deserving of a vote because they are small? FIFA's hands are effectively tied in that they must recognise all sovereign states as individual members as recognised by the UN etc. There is no optionality or discretion there. If you are a real sovereign entity, as recognised by international bodies, you get a seat at the table.

In addition to this, FIFA recognise a small cohort of statelets, territories and other non-sovereign entities, mostly for various historical and geographical reasons. This is not grounded in international law or anywhere other than in FIFA's rulebook.

What favourable treatment did we get at your expense for 40 years (or even less than that)?The restriction on the use of the name Ireland as outlined above would be a good place to start.

Whilst the 60 odd pages of rhetoric and history make somewhat interesting reading, the likelihood is that FIFA will do what it always does and take the path of least resistance. I firmly believe that will be reinforcing the validity of the current approach taken by the FAI. The IFA have more to lose than stopping people representing the ROI, and they know it.

Gather round

21/07/2010, 3:51 PM

For the purposes of this thread, I don't think anyone will move on until either the IFA back down or FIFA change the rules

Speak for yourself. There's only one broad IFA supporter on this thread; other NI fans, including me, have moved on, so there's no inherent reason why you and others can't. I imagine the IFA will back down fairly soon, with a bad grace. They're likely to lose and to be unable to afford any further legal or similar challenges.

I'm also not sure what a micro-country is, are they less deserving of a vote because they are small?

Population less than 100,000? They're equally, but no more deserving of a vote than England or the Faroe Islands are, I reckon.

FIFA's hands are effectively tied in that they must recognise all sovereign states as individual members as recognised by the UN etc. There is no optionality or discretion there. If you are a real sovereign entity, as recognised by international bodies, you get a seat at the table

Are you sure? FIFA is an independent organisation, not a UN quango. Can't it do as it pleases, including changing its own rule book?

This is not grounded in international law or anywhere other than in FIFA's rulebook

Fine. Why is this a problem? As long it doesn't break any international laws, FIFA can do as it sees fit?

The restriction on the use of the name Ireland as outlined above would be a good place to start

Ha ha. And to finish, presumably? I thought at the very least you'd suggest we were allowed a goal start, or a tame Swedish linesman in every games. You'll struggle to convince many abroad that part of Ireland not being allowed to call itself Ireland (however upsetting that might be) somehow offered an advantage to the other part of Ireland.

IFA have more to lose than stopping people representing the ROI, and they know it

As someone put it on OWC, in the short term they'll lose the PR battle (and be made to look poorly-led and vindictive, I think) . In the longer term their playing pool might be two or three men short at any given time. Generally, they've no more to lose than any other country's FA, unless you're suggesting that not being a sovereign country is a threat in itself, in which case I think you're deluding youself.

OneRedArmy

21/07/2010, 5:17 PM

Are you sure? FIFA is an independent organisation, not a UN quango. Can't it do as it pleases, including changing its own rule book?.
Fine. Why is this a problem? As long it doesn't break any international laws, FIFA can do as it sees fit?Not unbounded it can't. Despite throwing itself around like a school bully any time legal action is mentioned at the expense of its own arbitration process, to survive it has to operate within the bounds of national and international laws. Its strength is its complete global reach. If it pushes too far and doesn't bring the global "football family" along, you go down the boxing route of an IBF, WBA, WBC etc.

As someone put it on OWC, in the short term they'll lose the PR battle (and be made to look poorly-led and vindictive, I think) . In the longer term their playing pool might be two or three men short at any given time. Generally, they've no more to lose than any other country's FA, unless you're suggesting that not being a sovereign country is a threat in itself, in which case I think you're deluding youself. Agree with this.

DannyInvincible

21/07/2010, 8:21 PM

None taken. But if you are suggesting that, then quite simply you are just as wrong as Ardee Troll, the Fly and other posters who think unionists are somehow less Irish, or not Irish at all. I'm sure I speak for EG and other NI fans on the thread- our sense of being Irish comes from and is er, being from Ireland. It's perfectly simple.

I don't think unionists per se, by virtue of being unionist, are necessarily "less Irish" or a "different type of Irish", or whatever. That's not exactly what I was saying, not that you personally are not Irish at all, and therefore deluded or something. There are obviously those in the south whose sense of identity is rooted in the Ulster-Scots tradition or the old Protestant Ascendancy. Presumably they would have sympathised with unionist politics pre-partition (maybe even still*) and see much of their collective histories in British terms (maybe?). One thing I am sure of, however, is that they are as much Irish in the modern sense as I am. I wasn't espousing a traditional ethnic or Catholic nationalism of any sort - but very much a civic one - just to be sure. They're Irish nationality and my Irish nationality undoubtedly share an equal status and it's not my place to even say they're welcome to it as that might imply that my Irishness sits on some higher pedestal and that I have some sense of prerogative over how Irishness is defined; to "welcome them into 'our' set of rules" or whatever with "our" signifying some supposed superior status, if you get my drift... By saying such, there would be an implication or connotation there that they mightn't be welcome to it if those perceived as being "superiorly and unquestionably Irish" (not to suggest there is such a distinction in this case; I only use that for the purposes of this debate) objected to it, but that would be getting into rather distasteful and ethnically-motivated politics.

Your sense of Irishness, though, or what has been described as a "state of mind" by others, is surely something a bit different seeing as you, presumably, have little or no interest in being an Irish national as channelled through the modern Irish state. Would you object to using the term "Northern Irish" instead of "Irish" as a self-description? And do you consider yourself part of the Irish nation or part of an Irish nation? I'm not so sure there are two Irish nations, you see. I suppose it's like EG's Estonian-born Russians example. They see themselves as ethnically and culturally Russian, but I don't believe Russia offers them any legal recognition. I wouldn't deny their Russian heritage, but to classify them in the same bracket as fully-fledged Russian citizens seems a bit of a leap to me. At the same time, it would also seem absurd to refer to them as a second Russian nation. Maybe you disagree. Anyway, I'm not sure how coherent my points are as it's just something I've been mulling over here, but it seems quite an unconventional thought, and not even just for Irish nationalists who might feel that those perceived to be the native Irish - the Gaels or whatever, or they themselves even - have a traditional and innate dominion or prerogative over what constitutes Irishness.

*I'm aware that 'fhtb', to use a peculiar example, is from Donegal - presumably from around the Laggan area or somewhere given the fact he supports Finn Harps - yet, in supporting Northern Ireland (rather paradoxically?), he supports a British international team. He clearly feels that his identity is best represented by a British team despite presumably being an Irish national. Of course, I don't know the guy - would you want to?! :P - and don't want to jump to conclusions, but I'm just going from what I can see on the face of things and adding two and two together. Maybe he has northern parents or something and the reasons for the support can be better explained elsewhere, mind you. It would be interesting to hear his politics though, although that's certainly not an expectation for disclosure.

As for the custodian of my interests, whatever that means- beyond what people say on this thread, how would you know what they are?

The interests of a/an (Northern) Irish unionist, surely. ;) I suppose, generally-speaking, I'm referring to the notion that you and your kin, as unionists, see the UK as the protector of your rights and privileges and as where your future lies. Unless I'm mistaken.

Indeed. So how about both FAI and IFA agreeing that they won't select any players who've already appeared as adults (ie, age 18) for the other's teams?

No major qualms with that for the sake of maintaining good neighbourly terms. I like the idea of our players coming up through FAI ranks where possible, as I'm sure anyone would. It's certainly preferable that way and you can feel no doubts on a moral level as to how deserved it is when you're reaping the benefits; enjoying fruits of your labour and all that. In saying that, I don't feel like Shane Duffy, for example, did anything strictly unethical or whatever - as has been suggested in certain quarters - as that was how circumstances prevailed for the lad and I'm aware that the FAI and Sean McCaffrey were - rightly or wrongly, given the fact he had a Donegal father anyway - very reluctant to initiate contact with him while the IFA engaged in a process of fast-tracking. In the end, I don't think the FAI ever did make contact until his father got in touch with them despite it being patently obvious how keen Duffy was, but maybe that can be confirmed. Life is a matter of perspective and I'm prepared to fully give him the benefit of the doubt over his overall path. Bear in mind though, that an agreement between the IFA and FAI in the nature of what you propose wouldn't actually have restricted the FAI from selecting Gibson, Wilson or Duffy. They all switched before the age of 18. Can't be certain about others, but most switch quite early, contrary to what Beaglehole was trying to relay to the impressionable public. Would this render such an agreement largely pointless? Possibly.

Out of interest, would Duffy be exempt from your proposition anyway, what with him having a Donegal father and all?

Although I'll admit to not welcoming it, it's hardly preposterous. Although possibly not the best use of the FAI's resources. I mean, you will probably continue to get more players from England than Derry, Newry or Twinbrook, so why not set up the training camps there?

I was only suggesting it as something that might quell the IFA's protestations and ensure good relations. Plus, we'd be training our own players. Although it's not something I'm strongly advocating; just something to which I wouldn't object.

I am. A 20 year old wunderkind who's lived in Rathcoole throughout should be able to play for NI. He's as Irish as Jonny Evans regardless of passport carried.

That Rathcoole in Belfast or Rathcoole in Dublin? ;) A 20-year-old wonderkid born to Polish parents but who has lived in Rathcoole, Belfast his whole life would presumably qualify to play for Northern Ireland through either article 16 or 17 just so long as he somehow qualifies for British citizenship. I'm not certain as to how he would qualify for British citizenship or what procedures he might have to undergo. Naturalisation maybe, or am I overlooking something more obvious? As for whether or not he'd be eligible to play for Ireland, it appears he would be so long as he became a naturalised Irish citizen - however he, or his parents on his behalf, would go about doing that - but I'm only basing that on the fact that Alex Bruce is eligible to play for us via, I think, article 17, which raises a territorial dimension. As I've mentioned before, I don't understand how a player in Bruce's circumstances - he qualifies through a grandparent so his citizenship is neither a birthright or assumed automatically from birth once granted - can qualify to play for Ireland via article 17 if it's to be read literally.

Then again, the thing that puzzles me right now is FIFA's use of the word "permanent" in article 15. Obviously, nationality from birth is permanent in nature, but I'll use Alex Bruce as an example here as I've mentioned him above... He is born with the potential to claim Irish citizenship at a later date. It is not assumed to have taken automatic effect from birth if it's derived via a grand-parental link, as per my understanding of the relevant legislation on Irish nationality law. Once granted, however, it is technically permanent in nature from that date, right? So, what I'm wondering is whether Bruce actually does qualify to play for us by recourse to article 17, or whether it's actually by recourse to article 15. And, if he indeed is eligible via article 15, to what type of candidate would article 17 then apply? Is the need for such an article negated then other than for those persons who satisfy it by having lived in a country for at least five years after the age of 18, also having assumed a temporary citizenship of that country through naturalisation or whatever before or within that time? Once again, maybe I'm missing something obvious; my heads turning like a windmill.

Edit: Actually, apologies, I managed to confuse myself. I'm just realising I overlooked what should have been very obvious in relation to my final paragraph. Alex Bruce would be acquiring a new nationality, so article 17 is the rule that applies in his case. I'm pretty sure I've even discussed this in depth already on here, ha. My original worry about his eligibility, if article 17 is to be read literally, still stands then, seeing as his grandparent wasn't from the territory of the FAI, having been born in the north.

ArdeeBhoy

21/07/2010, 10:13 PM

Credit to DannyI again, especially the paragraph comparing Estonia and the North.

Out of interest, know the odd Romanian who tell me Moldova could be a better example of what you're talking about here. But that's a whole new can of worms!

But if you are suggesting that, then quite simply you are just as wrong as Ardee Troll, the Fly and other posters who think unionists are somehow less Irish, or not Irish at all. I'm sure I speak for EG and other NI fans on the thread- our sense of being Irish comes from and is er, being from Ireland. It's perfectly simple.*
Hypocrisy/Pomposity Alert!
Either that, or extreme Irony(again).

This is certainly not the view of the vast majority of unionists, who still see themselves as British, given a, er, preference!
The most recent study showed a minimum of 75% disagreeing, whatever the scope of the GFA!
Rather than a miniscule snapshot of views on a MB.

Not withstanding the vast reams of pointless (& repetitive) waffle generated, defending this minority position *

I've no problem with you distinguishing between concepts, statuses (stati?) legal this and constitutional that. Because really they're just convoluted ways of distinguishing between er, nationalists and unionists. Neither is inherently more or less Irish than the other.They're not really even differently Irish. Both coming from Ireland, like.
The British part of my identity doesn't contradict the Irish part. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't
For the latest regurgitation, see above, re.the stance of the majority of unionists and doubtless of fans of the North's football team.
What else is being suggested, other than this new-found stating of Irishness, is somehow diminishing 'Britishness';What percentage(s) are you claiming now ??

So how about both FAI and IFA agreeing that they won't select any players who've already appeared as adults (ie, age 18) for the other's teams?
Or doing as allowed, where anyone with dual or multiple-eligibility, are available to all until they receive their first competitive cap.

A 20 year old wunderkind who's lived in Rathcoole throughout should be able to play for NI. He's as Irish as Jonny Evans regardless of passport carried.
Unless of course they belong to, or identify with(especially due to family), another culture!

Bring up the Irish rugby or cricket teams if you like. As you suggest, they're anomalies which seem to work- although as you might guess I'd prefer to support a purely Northern Ireland cricket side.
Except no-one in the ICU would take such a farcically myopic view and on a more local level both the cricket and rugby teams have been capable of some admirable performances as joint teams, regardless of religion or political views.
At least give them credit for that.
Even the Boers, (Or should that be 'Bores' in this case) never called for this in S.Africa!

There's only one broad** IFA supporter on this thread; other NI fans, including me, have moved on, so there's no inherent reason why you and others can't. I imagine the IFA will back down fairly soon, with a bad grace. They're likely to lose and to be unable to afford any further legal or similar challenges.

As someone put it on OWC, in the short term they'll lose the PR battle (and be made to look poorly-led and vindictive, I think) . In the longer term their playing pool might be two or three men short at any given time. Generally, they've no more to lose than any other country's FA, unless you're suggesting that not being a sovereign country is a threat in itself, in which case I think you're deluding youself.
**Did you mean yourself?? ;)

And since when would the IFA be remotely interested in any PR battle;they're just interested, belatedly, hanging onto what they think they've already got.

Despite it being contrary to the GFA.
Remember the same thing, that confirms your dual-status.

Though most of your ilk don't seem to be currently interested! Or this what you meant by 'deluded'?
Lol.

dantheman

22/07/2010, 12:27 PM

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/FOOTBALL-IFA-wait-on-court.6428473.jp

With a photo of Londonderry's finest. No surprise at the demented rants of the Unionist posters when the read this tripe

FOOTBALL: IFA wait on court ruling

http://editorial.jpress.co.uk/web/Upload/BELF//TH1_207201013Gibson5.JPG
Londonderry-born Darron Gibson opted to play for the Republic

IT could be up to six weeks before the Irish
FA know if they were successful in halting the Republic of Ireland from grabbing their talented young players.
A team of legal experts and the IFA chief executive, Patrick Nelson, presented a case to the Court of Arbitration yesterday in an effort to halt Northern Ireland-born players opting to play for the Republic.

The IFA took the case to the Lausanne-based body after Daniel Kearns became the latest Northern Ireland born player to switch to the Republic this year.

It follows on from a a case brought before FIFA almost three years ago which failed to clarify the issue.

Irish Football Association president, Raymond Kennedy, who was also in Switzerland, told the News Letter last night that it could be "some
time" before an outcome would be known.

"It could be weeks, maybe up to six weeks," he said.

"All I can say is, given this is such a delicate issue, that everyone presented their cases today and it is now up to the panel to make a
decision."

Kearns, who attended yesterday's hearing, joined Darron Gibson, in changing allegiance after playing at youth level for Northern Ireland.

Yesterday, the IFA argued that players like Kearns and Gibson, whose parents and grandparents were born in Northern Ireland, should not be allowed to declare for the Republic.

It is a situation which puts the IFA at a clear disadvantage against all other 206 associations and there is a fear the player drain South
could gather momentum.

OneRedArmy

22/07/2010, 12:33 PM

Good balanced reporting by the Newsletter there. God help the poor lads, forced into servitude representing a country against their will.....

ArdeeBhoy

22/07/2010, 12:40 PM

To be fair though, does that article say anything we didn't already know?

dantheman

22/07/2010, 1:55 PM

To be fair though, does that article say anything we didn't already know?

No it doesnt, but its the first printed media version of the more right wing OWC version of events.

The only thing of note is the poaching>grabbing evolution. Where will it end? Raping? Genocide?

Gather round

22/07/2010, 2:52 PM

I don't think unionists per se, by virtue of being unionist, are necessarily "less Irish" or a "different type of Irish", or whatever. That's not exactly what I was saying, not that you personally are not Irish at all, and therefore deluded or something

No, it's not exactly what you're saying, and it's not not Irish at all. But it is, as I've suggested, an unwillingness or inability from some on this thread to accept that I'm just as Irish as you are, and not inherently different in that Irishness.

Your sense of Irishness, though, or what has been described as a "state of mind" by others, is surely something a bit different seeing as you, presumably, have little or no interest in being an Irish national as channelled through the modern Irish state

Allegiance to the modern Republic of Irish state isn't necessary to be Irish. There is another modern state in Ireland, after all.

Would you object to using the term "Northern Irish" instead of "Irish" as a self-description?

No problem, I use both. As I do 'Republic of Irish' to describe others, as you see above.

And do you consider yourself part of the Irish nation or part of an Irish nation? And do you consider yourself part of the Irish nation or part of an Irish nation?

Odd question. I mean, as I've explained repeatedly, there are two nations in Ireland, both with the word 'Ireland' in their official names. Not that I'm as hidebound by those as some on this thread.

I'm aware that 'fhtb', to use a peculiar example, is from Donegal

My only on-line challenge to his politics is that we differ on the first principle of eligibility for international football. I don't care which part of Ireland Duffy or Gibson's great-grandparents lived in 50 or 75 years ago. It's irrelevant. If they want to play for the Republic, fine. Bye bye.

As far as I know, I've never met him at a game or otherwise. I'm not even sure what the acronym stands for. Finn Harps top boy? Fc*king hate the Blues? Faroese have tremendous beers?

The interests of a/an (Northern) Irish unionist, surely. I suppose, generally-speaking, I'm referring to the notion that you and your kin, as unionists, see the UK as the protector of your rights and privileges and as where your future lies. Unless I'm mistaken

Politics is only one of my interests, and unionism only part of that. For what it's worth, I'd much prefer unionism to be a cross-party lobby in Brit politics, not a whole slew of separate parties. I'm actually a member of the Green Party over here. I've very little confidence in either the current British government, or the last one, protecting my interests!

I don't feel like Shane Duffy, for example, did anything strictly unethical or whatever - as has been suggested in certain quarters - as that was how circumstances prevailed for the lad and I'm aware that the FAI and Sean McCaffrey were - rightly or wrongly, given the fact he had a Donegal father anyway - very reluctant to initiate contact with him while the IFA engaged in a process of fast-tracking

I don't think either of them did anything unethical, they acted within the rules. That's why I want a bilateral agreement wich at least theoretically changes those rules. Best wishes to Duffy himself, glad to see he's making a quick recovery. The only other advice I'd give him is try to keep Da off bad-tempered internet boards...

Bear in mind though, that an agreement between the IFA and FAI in the nature of what you propose wouldn't actually have restricted the FAI from selecting Gibson, Wilson or Duffy. They all switched before the age of 18. Can't be certain about others, but most switch quite early, contrary to what Beaglehole was trying to relay to the impressionable public. Would this render such an agreement largely pointless? Possibly

Indeed, all those guys moved or declared before 18. I'm suggesting an arbitrary threshold. If such an agreement stopped 18 or 19 year old players moving, it would be worthwhile. Of course I realise it might stop some accepting an invitation to our u-19 or u-21 in the first place, but them's the vagaries.

Out of interest, would Duffy be exempt from your proposition anyway, what with him having a Donegal father and all?

No. as above I don't care where his Da's from. I'm irritated only really because he played in eight adult internationals for NI before changing his mind.

I was only suggesting it as something that might quell the IFA's protestations and ensure good relations. Plus, we'd be training our own players. Although it's not something I'm strongly advocating; just something to which I wouldn't object

Really? I assumed you were joking and replied in kind. In practice such training camps would be seen as a provocation by the IFA and NI fans, resulting in extended howls of anguish. Whereas camps in say, Preston, Pontefract or Mansfield, probably wouldn't even be noticed, let alone commented on, in the English media.

That Rathcoole in Belfast or Rathcoole in Dublin?

Belfast. I'd forgotten about the one in Dublin. As for EG's notional examples, my attitude to them would be clouded by my general attitude to citizenship in both Britain and the Republic. Broadly I think birth and/ or residence should qualify for citizenship, regardless of (grand)parentage etc.

The Fly

22/07/2010, 3:51 PM

An articulate, yet centrally flawed, piece by a unionist blogger and commentator, and OWC poster, in the Belfast Telegraph.

The article neglects to mention FIFA's primary principle on player eligibility:

Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on
residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of
the Association of that country.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/will-football-score-an-own-goal-on-nationality-issue-14882867.html

DannyInvincible

22/07/2010, 4:14 PM

Out of interest, know the odd Romanian who tell me Moldova could be a better example of what you're talking about here. But that's a whole new can of worms!

Sure why not? What else are we supposed to do for six weeks? ;)

As for the Newsletter piece, I think pretty much every line of it is pure rubbish. Funnily - or depressingly - enough, these are the standard arguments to be found on OWC. I'm going to tackle them all in one go because it isn't actually all that difficult to do so.

IT could be up to six weeks before the Irish FA know if they were successful in halting the Republic of Ireland from grabbing their talented young players.

Before I begin, congratulations to the Newsletter on reporting that it's been mentioned it might take up to six weeks for a final decision for that's one of the few things they've managed to report correctly. They're pretty much off the ball with everything else.

"Grabbing", "poaching", "targetting"; such aggressive hunter-and-hunted terminology amounts to nothing more than spin utilised to suit and bolster the warped agenda that a northern-born individual couldn't seriously want to play for anyone but Northern Ireland if he had a genuine choice in the matter. Of course, the players do have a genuine choice in the matter, whether they've been approached by the FAI initially or not*, but it means the NI fans who use this line of attack can avoid holding the players fully accountable for their choice and, instead, hold the FAI up as the scapegoat, as if they're coercing defenceless child slaves from the north to play for Ireland. Most worrying of all, the same attitude seems prevalent within the IFA and amongst its staff. I don't know why it's so difficult to recognise that the FAI haven't "grabbed" anyone who has willingly - nay, enthusiastically - decided completely voluntarily and on their own terms to represent Ireland. The FAI are simply making it possible for these players to realise their wishes. It's an insult to the players who would consider themselves anything but "grabbed" or "poached". If certain NI fans were to admit that these players' decisions to play for Ireland were made consensually and entirely within the realm of their own free will - and FIFA's rules, I might add - they would have to face a few home truths and admit that there are quite a few reasons as to why representing the IFA mightn't be all that appealing for many nationalists in comparison to the prospect of representing the FAI's team. That's not to deny that there will be some nationalists with no objection to representing Northern Ireland, but that doesn't necessarily contradict the former or negate its reality.

*Two brief points on the whole "who approached who first?" debate; the idea that the FAI are actually the first to engage contact - and doing so rampantly - is merely an exaggerated assumption based on something Chris Baird said about once being approached by the FAI. According to 'EalingGreen', of course. The purpose of the exaggeration is to further the aforementioned agenda. Anyway, I don't see why the FAI shouldn't approach northern-born Irish nationals who are eligible to play for Ireland, just as they would surely be entitled - both legally and morally - to approach any other player eligible to play for Ireland in order to gauge their interest and offer them a choice or opportunity to fulfil what might be a dream come true. What has to be so controversial, shameful or stigmatising about that?

A team of legal experts and the IFA chief executive, Patrick Nelson, presented a case to the Court of Arbitration yesterday in an effort to halt Northern Ireland-born players opting to play for the Republic.

In my view, the use of "legal experts" is quite a flattering description considering the quite comical legal approach they've decided to take.

It follows on from a a case brought before FIFA almost three years ago which failed to clarify the issue.

Load of guff, and I can't fathom how this one is still doing the rounds considering the statute book is and has been very accessible and has always been there to provide clarification on the issue when required. Furthermore, the IFA wouldn't be appealing a FIFA decision if FIFA hadn't clarified something in the first place by making a decision that didn't go down too well with the IFA. :rolleyes:

Kearns, who attended yesterday's hearing, joined Darron Gibson, in changing allegiance after playing at youth level for Northern Ireland.

Just to make it clear; having played at youth level doesn't restrict any player in the world from changing association just so long as he possesses more than one nationality. Half the Algerian squad at the most recent World Cup had formerly played for France at youth level.

Yesterday, the IFA argued that players like Kearns and Gibson, whose parents and grandparents were born in Northern Ireland, should not be allowed to declare for the Republic.

This argument has arisen out of an embarrassing lack of comprehension as to the meaning and effect of FIFA's statutes on eligibility. Or maybe it's just rooted in blind ignorance of them altogether. Article 15 is very straightforward in its application and mentions absolutely nothing about parents or grandparents, so why the IFA are arguing that such factors have any bearing on whether a player is eligible to play for Ireland or not is beyond me. Maybe they'd like it to be that way, but that would entail proposing a rule-change to FIFA, and that's not the route they've gone down by asking CAS to ensure that FIFA are interpreting their own statutes correctly.

It is a situation which puts the IFA at a clear disadvantage against all other 206 associations and there is a fear the player drain South
could gather momentum.

All players throughout the world in possession of dual or multiple citizenship can opt to play for two or more countries. There is no universal standard rule governing how a nation state may grant its particular citizenship. Ireland just happens to do it a bit differently from how most (all?) other countries do it. I'm sure other countries, like Ireland, however, have unique or idiosyncratic elements in their nationality laws. It doesn't make such laws any less valid or legitimate. Furthermore, Ireland's extra-territorial nationality laws were bilaterally agreed with the explicit consent and approval of the UK. If FIFA are fine with them, then all the better.

This "fear" of the "player drain" gathering momentum is simply sensationalist and scare-mongering nonsense drummed up by the IFA in order to bolster their PR campaign/case. Northern-born players like Mark McKeever, Ger Crossley and Brian Lagan were playing under the auspices of the FAI over a decade ago. Before that, in the early-to-mid-90s, Alan Kernaghan qualified for Irish citizenship, despite being English-born with grand-parental roots in the north, and was eligible to play for Ireland as a result.* Between then and the "recent opening of the floodgates", there have been plenty of northern-born players sprinkled throughout the various Irish youth set-ups. Kevin Deery, Barry Molloy, Neil McCafferty and Ruair� Harkin have all played for Ireland sides between 2002 and 2006. They're just a further four. I'm sure others more knowledgeable than myself could possibly point to others and rightly demonstrate that there is no indication that the latest "batch" of switch-overs are indicative of some seminal or crucial moment in the timeline. Don't be fooled by the panic stirred up in the media that began with Darron Gibson due to the fact that he was of a higher profile than the aforementioned players. Shane Duffy has a Donegal father anyway and I've read that Marc Wilson also has a grandparent from south of the border, so I don't even know if they ought to be counted.

*I've seen it argued that Kernaghan qualified to play for Ireland because his grandparent(s) were born pre-partition. This puzzles me. Maybe someone can offer some conclusive information here, but why would having a grandparent born in what is now Northern Ireland prior to partition enable someone to play for the FAI team? That just seems like another myth that has accrued truth-like status over the years by virtue of being repeated often enough. Of course, I could be entirely incorrect and would appreciate if someone could confirm the matter. Besides, Kernaghan still would have been eligible for Irish citizenship regardless, right?

ArdeeBhoy

22/07/2010, 4:29 PM

DannyI,
You've picked up from the early pace-makers, Fly & Predator. One thing's true, we'll all need a drink after this farce is over.

the first printed media version of the more right wing OWC version of events.

The only thing of note is the poaching>grabbing evolution. Where will it end? Raping? Genocide?
Granted, but that's why I didn't take it seriously.

No, it's not exactly what you're saying, and it's not not Irish at all. But it is, as I've suggested, an unwillingness or inability from some on this thread to accept that I'm just as Irish as you are, and not inherently different in that Irishness.

Yawn

So you're as Irish as everyone posting in this thread.
Yeah, right. Like you're remotely similar. Beyond a geographical link.

More a case of being an apologist for the existence of unionism, despite the concept at its very ethos, that it does not recognise, or have time for, the Irish state.

Allegiance to the modern Republic of Irish state isn't necessary to be Irish. There is another modern state in Ireland, after all.
Another state???
Some would question if Ireland's 'modern', let alone a community who insist on celebrating a battle of 320 years ago. Modern, not.

As I do 'Republic of Irish' to describe others, as you see above.
Not a term I've ever heard even other unionists use. See posts passim!

I mean, as I've explained repeatedly, there are two nations in Ireland, both with the word 'Ireland' in their official names. Broadly I think birth and/ or residence should qualify for citizenship, regardless of (grand)parentage etc.

There's one small country. And a colonial outpost of a far larger one, formerly a self-appointed 'super-state'.
Only one of which uses the name 'Ireland', whereas the other is part of the 'ever-loved' "united Kingdom"

co. down green

22/07/2010, 4:58 PM

Sure why not? What else are we supposed to do for six weeks? ;)

As for the Newsletter piece, I think pretty much every line of it is pure rubbish. Funnily - or depressingly - enough, these are the standard arguments to be found on OWC. I'm going to tackle them all in one go because it isn't actually all that difficult to do so.

Before I begin, congratulations to the Newsletter on reporting that it's been mentioned it might take up to six weeks for a final decision for that's one of the few things they've managed to report correctly. They're pretty much off the ball with everything else.

"Grabbing", "poaching", "targetting"; such aggressive hunter-and-hunted terminology amounts to nothing more than spin utilised to suit and bolster the warped agenda that a northern-born individual couldn't seriously want to play for anyone but Northern Ireland if he had a genuine choice in the matter. Of course, the players do have a genuine choice in the matter, whether they've been approached by the FAI initially or not*, but it means the NI fans who use this line of attack can avoid holding the players fully accountable for their choice and, instead, hold the FAI up as the scapegoat, as if they're coercing defenceless child slaves from the north to play for Ireland. Most worrying of all, the same attitude seems prevalent within the IFA and amongst its staff. I don't know why it's so difficult to recognise that the FAI haven't "grabbed" anyone who has willingly - nay, enthusiastically - decided completely voluntarily and on their own terms to represent Ireland. The FAI are simply making it possible for these players to realise their wishes. It's an insult to the players who would consider themselves anything but "grabbed" or "poached". If certain NI fans were to admit that these players' decisions to play for Ireland were made consensually and entirely within the realm of their own free will - and FIFA's rules, I might add - they would have to face a few home truths and admit that there are quite a few reasons as to why representing the IFA mightn't be all that appealing for many nationalists in comparison to the prospect of representing the FAI's team. That's not to deny that there will be some nationalists with no objection to representing Northern Ireland, but that doesn't necessarily contradict the former or negate its reality.

*Two brief points on the whole "who approached who first?" debate; the idea that the FAI are actually the first to engage contact - and doing so rampantly - is merely an exaggerated assumption based on something Chris Baird said about once being approached by the FAI. According to 'EalingGreen', of course. The purpose of the exaggeration is to further the aforementioned agenda. Anyway, I don't see why the FAI shouldn't approach northern-born Irish nationals who are eligible to play for Ireland, just as they would surely be entitled - both legally and morally - to approach any other player eligible to play for Ireland in order to gauge their interest and offer them a choice or opportunity to fulfil what might be a dream come true. What has to be so controversial, shameful or stigmatising about that?

In my view, the use of "legal experts" is quite a flattering description considering the quite comical legal approach they've decided to take.

Load of guff, and I can't fathom how this one is still doing the rounds considering the statute book is and has been very accessible and has always been there to provide clarification on the issue when required. Furthermore, the IFA wouldn't be appealing a FIFA decision if FIFA hadn't clarified something in the first place by making a decision that didn't go down too well with the IFA. :rolleyes:

Just to make it clear; having played at youth level doesn't restrict any player in the world from changing association just so long as he possesses more than one nationality. Half the Algerian squad at the most recent World Cup had formerly played for France at youth level.

This argument has arisen out of an embarrassing lack of comprehension as to the meaning and effect of FIFA's statutes on eligibility. Or maybe it's just rooted in blind ignorance of them altogether. Article 15 is very straightforward in its application and mentions absolutely nothing about parents or grandparents, so why the IFA are arguing that such factors have any bearing on whether a player is eligible to play for Ireland or not is beyond me. Maybe they'd like it to be that way, but that would entail proposing a rule-change to FIFA, and that's not the route they've gone down by asking CAS to ensure that FIFA are interpreting their own statutes correctly.

All players throughout the world in possession of dual or multiple citizenship can opt to play for two or more countries. There is no universal standard rule governing how a nation state may grant its particular citizenship. Ireland just happens to do it a bit differently from how most (all?) other countries do it. I'm sure other countries, like Ireland, however, have unique or idiosyncratic elements in their nationality laws. It doesn't make such laws any less valid or legitimate. Furthermore, Ireland's extra-territorial nationality laws were bilaterally agreed with the explicit consent and approval of the UK. If FIFA are fine with them, then all the better.

This "fear" of the "player drain" gathering momentum is simply sensationalist and scare-mongering nonsense drummed up by the IFA in order to bolster their PR campaign/case. Northern-born players like Mark McKeever, Ger Crossley and Brian Lagan were playing under the auspices of the FAI over a decade ago. Before that, in the early-to-mid-90s, Alan Kernaghan qualified for Irish citizenship, despite being English-born with grand-parental roots in the north, and was eligible to play for Ireland as a result.* Between then and the "recent opening of the floodgates", there have been plenty of northern-born players sprinkled throughout the various Irish youth set-ups. Kevin Deery, Barry Molloy, Neil McCafferty and Ruair� Harkin have all played for Ireland sides between 2002 and 2006. They're just a further four. I'm sure others more knowledgeable than myself could possibly point to others and rightly demonstrate that there is no indication that the latest "batch" of switch-overs are indicative of some seminal or crucial moment in the timeline. Don't be fooled by the panic stirred up in the media that began with Darron Gibson due to the fact that he was of a higher profile than the aforementioned players. Shane Duffy has a Donegal father anyway and I've read that Marc Wilson also has a grandparent from south of the border, so I don't even know if they ought to be counted.

*I've seen it argued that Kernaghan qualified to play for Ireland because his grandparent(s) were born pre-partition. This puzzles me. Maybe someone can offer some conclusive information here, but why would having a grandparent born in what is now Northern Ireland prior to partition enable someone to play for the FAI team? That just seems like another myth that has accrued truth-like status over the years by virtue of being repeated often enough. Of course, I could be entirely incorrect and would appreciate if someone could confirm the matter. Besides, Kernaghan still would have been eligible for Irish citizenship regardless, right?

Excellent post Danny, you should email that to the Newsletter letters page and see if they publish it :)

The Fly

22/07/2010, 9:42 PM

*I've seen it argued that Kernaghan qualified to play for Ireland because his grandparent(s) were born pre-partition. This puzzles me. Maybe someone can offer some conclusive information here, but why would having a grandparent born in what is now Northern Ireland prior to partition enable someone to play for the FAI team? That just seems like another myth that has accrued truth-like status over the years by virtue of being repeated often enough. Of course, I could be entirely incorrect and would appreciate if someone could confirm the matter. Besides, Kernaghan still would have been eligible for Irish citizenship regardless, right?

If memory serves me correctly, the reason why Kernaghan was unable to represent Northern Ireland was because neither he, nor his parents, were born in Northern Ireland, a requirement the IFA insisted upon at the time. Despite protests from the Kernaghan family, the IFA were apparently keen to maintain the status quo.

Ironically, making it seem all the more unfair for Kernaghan - as Northern Ireland was clearly his first choice of representation, is the agreement struck by the four "Home Nation" countries in 1993, which accepted that a player - providing he held a British passport - was eligible to play for the country of birth of any of his natural grandparents. Kernaghan had made his debut for the Ireland (ROI) just weeks earlier.

His grandparents were born in Belfast and held Irish passports, thus explaining his eligibility.

The Fly

22/07/2010, 9:47 PM

Hats off to admin for the belated re-greening of foot.ie! :clap:

DannyInvincible

23/07/2010, 1:04 AM

By the way, Belfast-born Christine Drain and Lurgan-born Henry McStay were two others who switched to represent FAI teams around or shortly after the turn of the millennium. Clearly, it's been something that’s been happening for over a decade now and players to have switched recently - in the "post-Gibsongate era", we'll call it ;) - are just examples of a continuation of this phenomenon. There's no indication of an out-of-the-ordinary sharp rise or of the "current phase" being some sort of watershed moment, yet the IFA has still continued to function and run an international team perfectly well.

If, indeed, the IFA is genuinely worried about the practice gaining momentum, maybe they should look at themselves and how inflexibly unionist kicking up a media furore over Gibson and Duffy appeared to nationalists in the north. In making such an issue about this whole thing, they've only given those players, along with the whole issue of eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals generally, back-page headline publicity. They've already made nationalist heroes (in the footballing sense) out of two players who are currently somewhere between the level of fringe and squad players at their respective clubs. They've run the FAI’s advertisement campaign for them! If it turns out that more and more nationalist players in the north do want to follow suit, the IFA only have themselves to blame. They had no need to even bring Duffy with his Donegal roots into the whole thing, only they wanted to ride into the CAS case on the back of the publicity generated from their brewing up a storm over his switch.

As it is, however, there is no current evidence to suggest that momentum will actually gather. Not that that would affect the morality of it in my book as I feel all Irish nationals must be equally entitled to represent us - the FAI introducing some sort of threshold or upper cap system in agreement with the IFA would be preposterous, for example - but, to keep NI fans content, I'm certain there will always be nationalists who would rather fancy their chances of experiencing senior international football with the IFA, just as there have been for the past decade or more when it has always been possible for them to switch.

Another thing; this process has been occurring for over ten years, but only now the IFA kicks up a fuss and tries to do something about it by going to CAS? What sort of picture does that paint of the IFA? Might this "Football for All" be complete posturing? I suspect they couldn't really give a **** about their teams portraying a cross-community flavour or they would have gone to CAS as a priority about this in the late 90s, strictly in the interests of consistency. They only had a moan about it when a player with big prospects decided to make the switch. They're as self-interested as the body they now accuse of poaching northern-born players. I don't know where they attained the audacity to claim a moral high-ground in all of this.

Sullivinho

23/07/2010, 1:13 AM

Hats off to admin for the belated re-greening of foot.ie! :clap:

Hear Hear :clover:

Charlie Darwin

23/07/2010, 2:55 AM

I found another player we can poach. The name McCullough suggests he could be Protestant or Catholic, but apparently once we get our teeth into these lads they are completely powerless against our seduction attempts.

http://www.irishcentral.com/sport/Manchester-United-land-Northern-Ireland-youth-captain-on-scholarship-97608064.html

DannyInvincible

23/07/2010, 4:56 AM

If memory serves me correctly, the reason why Kernaghan was unable to represent Northern Ireland was because neither he, nor his parents, were born in Northern Ireland, a requirement the IFA insisted upon at the time. Despite protests from the Kernaghan family, the IFA were apparently keen to maintain the status quo.

Ironically, making it seem all the more unfair for Kernaghan - as Northern Ireland was clearly his first choice of representation, is the agreement struck by the four "Home Nation" countries in 1993, which accepted that a player - providing he held a British passport - was eligible to play for the country of birth of any of his natural grandparents. Kernaghan had made his debut for the Ireland (ROI) just weeks earlier.

His grandparents were born in Belfast and held Irish passports, thus explaining his eligibility.

Cheers for that, although I'd been aware of why the IFA wouldn't permit Kernaghan to represent Northern Ireland. I'd read an article about his circumstances a while back: http://sport.scotsman.com/rangersfc/Kernaghan-still-pushing-back-the.3337606.jp

It was just that, with regard to how he qualified to play for us, I encountered a claim the other night on OWC that puzzled me. If you want to try and root it out, it was contained in quite a lengthy one by 'Marty' in the CAS thread. Mind you, it's probably a few pages back now given the amount of daily activity in that thread the past few days with the case and all.

Anyway, the assertion was that Kernaghan qualified to play for us by virtue of his grandparents having been born in what is now Northern Ireland prior to partition; the "having been born prior to partition" supposedly acting as the crucial factor. The implication being that he wouldn't have been eligible to play for us had his grandparents been born in Belfast post-partition. What follows from this belief is that Kernaghan is a case distinct from these other Irish nationals whose roots are in the north and decide to play for Ireland.

Of course, I recognise Kernaghan didn't technically "switch" as he was never given the opportunity to play for Northern Ireland in the first place and, likewise, I'm aware that FIFA's eligibility rules would have been different then, but Irish nationality law still had, and presumably always did have, in applying retrospectively to the pre-partition era (?), an all-island effect. I don't see how partition had any crucial bearing on Kernaghan's eligibility under FIFA rules considering they were looser at the time, however - am I right in assuming that possession of a passport of a certain country pretty much guaranteed eligibility for that country? - as the grandparent would have been eligible for Irish citizenship either way, whether born before or after.

The point is that he's an example of a player with northern roots being eligible to play for us prior to the Good Friday Agreement, so presumably northern-born Irish nationals have always been eligible to play for us under FIFA's rules. And presumably what halted others from doing what Kernaghan did was this oft-mentioned gentlemen's agreement. It appears that if there ever was a gentlemen's agreement between the FAI and the IFA, however, it ceased to function fairly shortly after the GFA. Maybe the GFA was the watershed moment after all? If such an agreement did exist prior to the GFA, possibly Kernaghan was exempt from its application as he wasn�t actually eligible to play for Northern Ireland anyway due to another gentlemen�s agreement the IFA had with the other British associations requiring themselves not to select each others' players or whatever. Possibly with the extra-territorial dimension of Irish nationality law attaining the consent of the Northern Irish population and the express approval of the UK in 1998, the FAI felt it was more acceptable to begin calling up northern-born Irish nationals who wished to represent us. Whilst it was always permissible under FIFA rules, maybe they now felt morally vindicated?

Anyway, I�m just speculating and feel like I'm rambling on a bit as I�m not really sure of the full story behind his eligibility, although the article on Kernaghan above features the following line:

The Football Association of Ireland [FAI] classed anyone with a grandparent born either side of the Irish border as fair game for their recruitment scouts.

Then again, you couldn�t trust a journalist...

By the way, Saul Deeney was another northern-born player who slipped my mind. He represented Ireland in the early 00s also. The practice has clearly been occurring on a similar scale for about ten years now with maybe a few players switching each year and yet, of course, the IFA remains, as ever, in unthreatened existence.

DannyInvincible

23/07/2010, 6:01 AM

Marc Mukendi was another Derry-born player I'd forgotten about. He represented Ireland at under-19 level in 2005 and under-18 level before that, I think. Interestingly, I'm assuming Mukendi, who has a Derry mother, would actually be eligible to play for three countries - Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Democratic Republic of Congo - given the fact his father Jos� was Zairean; Zaire being later succeeded by the Democratic Republic of Congo.

seanfhear

23/07/2010, 6:07 AM

gspain

23/07/2010, 7:20 AM

Alan Kernaghan qualified for us because he could get an Irish passport which was the rule at the time. He had 4 grandparents born on the island of Ireland and 1 would have been enough.
partition had nothing to do with it. Any NI born player or who had a parent or grandparent from NI was eligible for us at the time.

He played schools for NI but they turned him down for their side as they didn't employ the granny rule (own choice). He was a special case anyway with 4 grandparents (mainly from Bangor I think) and he grew up in Bangor from 4 years of age. I'm glad they turned him down as he was a far better player for us than many appreciated despite one stinker v Spain
but the likes of Kevin Moran who was as bad that day get away with it. Alan was magnificent in the draw (as indeed was Kevin) in Copenhagen with the then european champions.

DannyInvincible

23/07/2010, 7:59 AM

Gather round

23/07/2010, 8:31 AM

If certain NI fans were to admit that these players' decisions to play for Ireland were made consensually...they would have to face a few home truths and admit that there are quite a few reasons as to why representing the IFA mightn't be all that appealing for many nationalists in comparison to the prospect of representing the FAI's team. That's not to deny that there will be some nationalists with no objection to representing Northern Ireland, but that doesn't necessarily contradict the former or negate its reality

There's one basic reason, surely? They don't identify with/ support/ want to play for the NI teams. Apart from the ones who'd already played for those teams, maybe. But ultimately if they don't want to play, you can't force them. Bye.

the FAI introducing some sort of threshold or upper cap system in agreement with the IFA would be preposterous, for example

Indeed. But is anyone seriously suggesting it? Sounds like a straw man to me, introduced only to prolong/ exaggerate the whole sorry mess.

What sort of picture does that paint of the IFA? Might this "Football for All" be complete posturing? I suspect they couldn't really give a **** about their teams portraying a cross-community flavour

As I've said, it's an avoidable PR didaster, but to echo your own post above it doesn't negate FFA. The intent and effect of which, as I've said, has always been to make the atmosphere at and around games more welcoming to everybody. Not to 'convert' fans from supporting the Republic. It's long been accepted that most nationalist fans in NI support the Republic (although some will follow NI as a second team). A major aim of FFA was to attract (back) people who weren't necessarily supporting anyone, but who might if they were weren't intimidated about going to the games, or thought the facilities were improved, or whatever.

I suspect your suspicion is exaggerated. The IFA and NI can expect most fans to be broadly unionist (as they have been for decades) but at the same time many of the players, coaches etc. to be broadly nationalist. For reasons detailed repeatedly up-thread.

Excellent post Danny, you should email that to the Newsletter letters page and see if they publish it

Agreed, good luck with that. Although of course they might edit or truncate it. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the Sunday Business Post about some aspect of the Peace Procession, and persuaded my mate (a sub-editor on the paper) to ensure it appeared in print. In passing, I chided their editorial policy of invariably describing Northern Ireland as "the North". Which of course then appeared in print as "Please stop referring to the North as the North, it's childish".

If memory serves me correctly, the reason why Kernaghan was unable to represent Northern Ireland was because neither he, nor his parents, were born in Northern Ireland, a requirement the IFA insisted upon at the time. Despite protests from the Kernaghan family, the IFA were apparently keen to maintain the status quo

Aye. It shows the absurdity of grandparentage and accident of birth (or 'blood and soil' or similar) trumping lifelong residence, schooling, resulting choice etc. as the main criteria for eligibility.