Player eligibility row

[EalingGreen]

Well for once I am with GR on this one. I have a lot of friends in NI in both traditions and I think that a lot of Unionists do regard themselves as 100% Irish and 100% British and this is not necessarily a contradiction. In the same way many Welsh, Scottish and English "unionists" would be able to square the same circle. From a nationalist perspective there is a tendency to define Irishness as something incompatible with Britishness but for a Unionist this is simply not the case. They can reconcile Irishness and Britishness in exactly the same way that a Dubliner can be 100% a Dub and 100% Irish. One identity contains and transcends the other. If there were ever to be a United Ireland it would require Irish nationalists to radically extend their definition of Irish to contain / embrace the Britishness which is unquestionably a significant part of the heritage and culture of this island.When it comes to how I identify myself politically, that post sums up my own feelings beautifully (though no doubt Ardee Bhoy's fingers are already straining at the keyboard to educate me as to what I do/should/must feel etc)

However, whatever one feels on the vexed political questions of "nationality" and "identity" etc, I genuinely feel it is (or should be, at any rate) entirely irrelevant to the debate over footballing eligibility.

For as a Southern GAA fan put it so eloquently on another forum:
"So by virtue of the GFA agreement people can be Irish within* Northern Ireland and have that right secured. So why would they need to play for another sports team, when their Irishness is assured within Northern Ireland? The GFA argument actually works against those who want to play for the Republic"

Otherwise, if representing the ROI at football is somehow essential towards "being Irish", would that mean eg a brother of Darron Gibson who has never played for ROI, is somehow "less Irish" than he? Would someone like to tell eg Gerry Taggart that he is somehow "less Irish" for having played 51 times for NI? (I'd pay good money to see that one!) What about eg Gerry Armstrong? Are his NI caps cancelled out by his also having played Gaelic Football at Croke Park for his club? And where does Martin O'Neill stand on the issue? I mean to say, can he offset his NI caps by his own GAA career? And does his management of Celtic offset his acceptance of an MBE from Her Majesty? Perhaps someone like Kingdom Kerry can solve this conundrum, seeing as he knows everything else about NI (from a distance of 200 miles...)

Of course, there is actually a much simpler solution staring us in the face, if only people would acknowledge it. Namely, there are two Football Associations in Ireland, each with its own territory, jurisdiction and international football team. So that if you are born within the territory of one, that is whom you represent; whereas if born within the territory of the other, then the same applies. For that way, both the IFA and FAI would be treated in exactly the same way as all of the other 206 Member Associations of FIFA, whereby being born within one Associations territory does NOT automatically give someone a choice to represent some other Association (outwith the normal exception of ancestry or residence, deriving from Dual Nationality).

Of course, such a suggestion will no doubt raise the ire of small-minded individuals who cannot see beyond their own petty political prejudices towards the wider interests of sport. Nor do they appear to possess the integrity to acknowledge it when others reconcile their personal political allegiances etc with representing one Irish international football team over another.

Speaking of which, the most recent example comes from this morning, when Damien Johnson issued the following statement on the occasion of his retirement from international football:

“It has been a huge honour for me to have represented Northern Ireland and I have enjoyed many special moments throughout my international career,” said the 31-year-old, who has been capped 56 times for his country.

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped me during my time with the Northern Ireland team: the managers who I have played under; the backroom staff; all of the players I've played alongside; and the incredible fans for their support.

“It hasn't been an easy decision for me to make but, with the help of my family, I feel it is the best decision for my career.

“I'd particularly like to thank Nigel Worthington for his support and understanding over the last couple of weeks. I wish Nigel and the team every success in the forthcoming European Championships.”Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/nis-johnson-announces-retirement-from-international-action-467258.html#ixzz0v66Xr6OT

Quite honestly, I wouldn't swap the privilege of watching a true Gentleman and Professional like DJ for 10 x Darron "Irish" Gibsons or 10 x Shane "Catholic" Duffys. Indeed, I should probably pity those ROI fans from "the North" who will never feel the pride I and my fellow NI fans feel when 11 players from the same wee bit of the world as theirs, put aside whatever political allegiances they may have and march out to take on all-comers from the rest of the world, win, lose or draw.



* - The GFA specifically includes: "Recognition of 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"

[dantheman]

You Irishness is a Irishness based on separation EG, separation of the Irish nation.

'Tis a strange sense of nationality alright...

[co. down green]

Of course, such a suggestion will no doubt raise the ire of small-minded individuals who cannot see beyond their own petty political prejudices towards the wider interests of sport. Nor do they appear to possess the integrity to acknowledge it when others reconcile their personal political allegiances etc with representing one Irish international football team over another.

You actually come across as being quite a bitter person eg, someone who cannot accept that for many Irish people who live in the north, we are happy to support and play for a team that represents every part of the island, as is the case in every other sport in Ireland. You almost sound like someone who left the country 30 years ago and believe that the old thinking of 'our way or no way' should still be the norm.


Quite honestly, I wouldn't swap the privilege of watching a true Gentleman and Professional like DJ for 10 x Darron "Irish" Gibsons or 10 x Shane "Catholic" Duffys. Indeed, I should probably pity those ROI fans from "the North" who will never feel the pride I and my fellow NI fans feel when 11 players from the same wee bit of the world as theirs, put aside whatever political allegiances they may have and march out to take on all-comers from the rest of the world, win, lose or draw.

Feel no pity eg, the pride of watching lads from Derry, dublin, Cork and beyond come together to represent you on the world stage is indeed a sight to behold and a pleasure that never falters with time.

[EalingGreen]

You Irishness is a Irishness based on separation EG, separation of the Irish nation.

'Tis a strange sense of nationality alright...Really? You see, such a conclusion may only derive from an assumption that ones political outlook supercedes all other badges of identity and further, that to be a "true" Irishman, that political outlook must be that of a Nationalist/Republican/Gael etc.

Whereas this Irishman's "Irishness" is defined by a hell of a sight more than mere politics. Sure, I prefer to see my part of Ireland united with GB, rather than the Republic, but so what? I have many Irish friends who aspire to the reverse and it's no reason for me to think any less of them.

Conversely, I know many "loyal Prods", who never fail to stand for GSTQ or march to The Field on the Twelfth etc, to whom I wouldn't give the time of day.

All of them are Irish as far as I'm concerned, but I know which group I would rather be "united" with - and that has got nothing to do with a line on a map or an Election every five years.

[dantheman]

Really? You see, such a conclusion may only derive from an assumption that ones political outlook supercedes all other badges of identity and further, that to be a "true" Irishman, that political outlook must be that of a Nationalist/Republican/Gael etc.

Whereas this Irishman's "Irishness" is defined by a hell of a sight more than mere politics. Sure, I prefer to see my part of Ireland united with GB, rather than the Republic, but so what? I have many Irish friends who aspire to the reverse and it's no reason for me to think any less of them.

Conversely, I know many "loyal Prods", who never fail to stand for GSTQ or march to The Field on the Twelfth etc, to whom I wouldn't give the time of day.

All of them are Irish as far as I'm concerned, but I know which group I would rather be "united" with - and that has got nothing to do with a line on a map or an Election every five years.

So your Irishness is primarily geographical?

[co. down green]

Cas will be announcing their decision of the case brought by the IFA against Daniel Kearns, the FAI & FIFA tomorrow

[janeymac]

1. I don't. Haven't you noticed my posts on the thread pointing out where I disagree with other unionists?

2. This makes no sense. Pretty much 100% of unionists in Northern Ireland use the name Northern Ireland. It's part of Ireland, they're Irish.

So its ok for you to decide what nationality you are k- but not alright for other unionists. Anyway - it would seem you are a minority in what you think. According to wiki (2006):

A 2006 report from the Institute of Governance stated that "Three-quarters of Northern Ireland’s Protestants regard themselves as British, but only 12 per cent of Northern Ireland’s Catholics do so. Conversely, a majority of Catholics (65%) regard themselves as Irish, whilst very few Protestants (5%) do likewise" and that "In Northern Ireland, very few respondents identify themselves as both British and Irish.-

75% of Protestants feel to be British; 12% of Catholics;
65% Catholics feel to be Irish; 5% of Protestants.

Institute of Governance, 2006. "National identities in the UK: do they matter?" Briefing No. 16, January 2006. Retrieved from http://www.institute-of-governance.org/forum/Leverhulme/briefing_pdfs/IoG_Briefing_16.pdf on August 24, 2006.

From that GR, don't think there are too many unionists have the same opinion that you do.


Indeed, they probably have (various relatives who researched it have got back as far as the mid 19th so far). But I don't need them to prove how Irish I am.



That's the problem with your understanding, it's exclusive and unnecessarily restrictive. 'The Irish nation' suggests there's only one as defined by you.

In an earlier post you had a little dig at Garech de Brun really being Gary Browne. You are right about the Browne bit, but he happened to be christened Garech by Lord Oranmore, his father (longest serving member of the House of Lords). I suppose it would shock you to know that the current Lord Rosse (whose half brother married the Queen's sister) is actually called Brendan (Brendan was an Irish saint!).

Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit about how British people / those with British heritage have fitted into the 'Irish' nation without proclaiming how restrictive our notion of 'irishness' is.

You could start with Garech - a piece from Vanity Fair called 'A Little Brit Different'. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/01/eccentrics_slideshow200801#slide=7

His father, Lord Oranmore seems to have been even more interesting - here is a link to his obit in the Telegraph -
"His 100th birthday was celebrated with a family party at the Ritz. He was glad to receive a telegram from the President of Ireland, but disappointed by the card from the Queen, which had a large photograph of her on the front and seemed to him undignified. "Horrible," he muttered as he stuffed it back into the envelope.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1404021/Lord-Oranmore-and-Browne.html

[ifk101]

Of course, there is actually a much simpler solution staring us in the face, if only people would acknowledge it. Namely, there are two Football Associations in Ireland, each with its own territory, jurisdiction and international football team. So that if you are born within the territory of one, that is whom you represent; whereas if born within the territory of the other, then the same applies. For that way, both the IFA and FAI would be treated in exactly the same way as all of the other 206 Member Associations of FIFA, whereby being born within one Associations territory does NOT automatically give someone a choice to represent some other Association (outwith the normal exception of ancestry or residence, deriving from Dual Nationality).

Of course, such a suggestion will no doubt raise the ire of small-minded individuals who cannot see beyond their own petty political prejudices towards the wider interests of sport. Nor do they appear to possess the integrity to acknowledge it when others reconcile their personal political allegiances etc with representing one Irish international football team over another.

It's acceptable for you to use dual-nationality to determine eligibility (yet you refer to us as "beggars" for using this selection approach) but not acceptable to use nationality, in the singular sense, as a basis for eligibility? Indeed that's a very simple and reasoned solution.....

[Predator]

However, whatever one feels on the vexed political questions of "nationality" and "identity" etc, I genuinely feel it is (or should be, at any rate) entirely irrelevant to the debate over footballing eligibility.Do you truly feel that nationality should not be the defining principle of international football team eligibility? Or just in the case of Ireland?



Originally posted by 'Southern GAA fan'
So by virtue of the GFA agreement people can be Irish within* Northern Ireland and have that right secured. So why would they need to play for another sports team, when their Irishness is assured within Northern Ireland? The GFA argument actually works against those who want to play for the RepublicWeak point.They don't 'need' to play for Ireland in order to have their 'Irishness' assured. The point is, that their Irish nationality allows them to play for the representative teams of the association governing football in Ireland, that being the FAI.


Of course, there is actually a much simpler solution staring us in the face, if only people would acknowledge it. Namely, there are two Football Associations in Ireland, each with its own territory, jurisdiction and international football team. So that if you are born within the territory of one, that is whom you represent; whereas if born within the territory of the other, then the same applies. For that way, both the IFA and FAI would be treated in exactly the same way as all of the other 206 Member Associations of FIFA, whereby being born within one Associations territory does NOT automatically give someone a choice to represent some other Association (outwith the normal exception of ancestry or residence, deriving from Dual Nationality).So, basically, you would like to see FIFA's rules regarding international football team eligibility changed so that instead of being defined primarily by nationality, it is defined by territory alone.


Of course, such a suggestion will no doubt raise the ire of small-minded individuals who cannot see beyond their own petty political prejudices towards the wider interests of sport. Nor do they appear to possess the integrity to acknowledge it when others reconcile their personal political allegiances etc with representing one Irish international football team over another.Of course, any criticism of or objection to your proposal must come from an ignorant individual who cares not for the 'wider interests of sport'. It couldn't possibly make sense to any rational individual. That was sarcasm, just in case you're struggling with the interpretation.


Quite honestly, I wouldn't swap the privilege of watching a true Gentleman and Professional like DJ for 10 x Darron "Irish" Gibsons or 10 x Shane "Catholic" Duffys. Indeed, I should probably pity those ROI fans from "the North" who will never feel the pride I and my fellow NI fans feel when 11 players from the same wee bit of the world as theirs, put aside whatever political allegiances they may have and march out to take on all-comers from the rest of the world, win, lose or draw.Who is objecting to Johnson playing for Northern Ireland and being happy to have done so? Anyway, the snide, but obvious implication here is that the likes of Duffy and Gibson are not 'true Gentlemen' or professionals, which is a bit sad. Just get over it.

[EalingGreen]

You actually come across as being quite a bitter person eg, someone who cannot accept that for many Irish people who live in the north, we are happy to support and play for a team that represents every part of the island, as is the case in every other sport in Ireland.I wouldn't like to feel I'm "bitter" - I just see it as sticking up for my own team's interests, on this site in the face of concerted opposition.

As for other people in NI, I have long agreed (and stated) that people may support whichever team they like, for whatever reason or none. However, whilst supporting a team must be a matter of choice, playing for a team most emphatically is not - otherwise there would be no eligibility criteria.

Therefore if we must have criteria, then they should be fair and consistent. And it is undeniable that as presently framed, FIFA's Statutes discriminate against the IFA, as the only Member of 208 whose Territory and Jurisdiction is compromised, to the benefit of a rival, and stemming from a political policy of a foreign Government over which it (IFA or FIFA) has no influence.

As for other sports, I couldn't give a stuff what they do - why should I, or any other football fan?


You almost sound like someone who left the country 30 years ago and believe that the old thinking of 'our way or no way' should still be the norm.Leaving aside the technical observation that I didn't leave "the" (i.e. my) country 30 years ago(!), all I ask is that "our" way be exactly the same as that of every other international country within FIFA.

Especially since if that way is good enough for Damien Johnson, Sammy Clingan, Chris Baird or Niall McGinn etc, then I see no reason why it should not be good enough for everyone in NI. Of course, there may be some people whose politics clearly supercedes their view of sport, in which case, they don't have to play for NI if they don't want. However, I simply do not see why someone from eg Derry should be permitted an alternative "choice" on account of their politics, whereas someone from eg Bilbao, Tallinn, East Jerusalem or Pristina etc is not.


Feel no pity eg, the pride of watching lads from Derry, dublin, Cork and beyond come together to represent you on the world stage is indeed a sight to behold and a pleasure that never falters with time.You see, if I followed your principle in allowing my politics to inform my footballing allegiance, then my equivalent would be to try to take pride in watching lads from Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and Belfast representing me on the world stage and as I've said before on this site, a United Kingdom team holds no greater attraction to me than a United Ireland team.

Indeed, if we must reduce the debate down to crude simplifications (like eg Shane "I'm a Catholic, so obviously I want to play for Ireland" Duffy), I am immensely proud that my team is made up equally of RC/Nationalist and Prod/Unionist Irishmen, whereas yours derives solely from one subset.

And we're the "bigots" in all this...

[EalingGreen]

So your Irishness is primarily geographical?Notwithstanding that my Irishness is actually an amalgam of many things, I guess that Geography is as good a starting point as any.

Which does not contradict the point I was actually making, which is that we can all be equally and authentically Irish, without having all to share the same, prescribed political outlook. Which amongst other things, explains why when I can be both Irish (geographical, cultural, heritage etc) and British (political) at the same time.

[EalingGreen]

It's acceptable for you to use dual-nationality to determine eligibility (yet you refer to us as "beggars" for using this selection approach) but not acceptable to use nationality, in the singular sense, as a basis for eligibility? Indeed that's a very simple and reasoned solution.....You are misrepresenting what I said, whether deliberately or unconsciously I do nor know.

Think of it this way. If a footballer born eg in Paris (the territory of the FFF) wishes to represent Algeria, it is not sufficient that he may be able to persuade the Algerian Government to grant him Algerian (i.e. Dual) Nationality. He also has to demonstrate either an Algerian parent/grandparent, or have resided in the country for a minimum period. And this principle applies to 206 of the other 207 Member Associations of FIFA.

Whereas with the 208th (IFA), someone born within our territory may represent another Association, without having to meet the same additional criteria.

This is both inequitable and discriminatory and I would like to think that CAS would recognise this, even if FIFA won't (though I don't hold out much hope).

Oh well.

[Mr_Parker]

You are misrepresenting what I said, whether deliberately or unconsciously I do nor know.

Think of it this way. If a footballer born eg in Paris (the territory of the FFF) wishes to represent Algeria, it is not sufficient that he may be able to persuade the Algerian Government to grant him Algerian (i.e. Dual) Nationality. He also has to demonstrate either an Algerian parent/grandparent, or have resided in the country for a minimum period. And this principle applies to 206 of the other 207 Member Associations of FIFA.

Whereas with the 208th (IFA), someone born within our territory may represent another Association, without having to meet the same additional criteria.

This is both inequitable and discriminatory and I would like to think that CAS would recognise this, even if FIFA won't (though I don't hold out much hope).

Oh well.

Again, you compare apple and pears. You are comparing someone who seeks dual nationality with someone who doesn't.

[dantheman]

Notwithstanding that my Irishness is actually an amalgam of many things, I guess that Geography is as good a starting point as any.

Which does not contradict the point I was actually making, which is that we can all be equally and authentically Irish, without having all to share the same, prescribed political outlook. Which amongst other things, explains why when I can be both Irish (geographical, cultural, heritage etc) and British (political) at the same time.

So basically your Irish, but see most of Ireland as foreign?

[co. down green]

my equivalent would be to try to take pride in watching lads from Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and Belfast representing me on the world stage

Don't you take pride in all the London lads representing your team at the moment?

[ArdeeBhoy]

And all the other parts of England & Scotland;Just cut out the middle-man and have a GB team.....

[EalingGreen]

Do you truly feel that nationality should not be the defining principle of international football team eligibility? Or just in the case of Ireland?
Of course "nationality" has to be at the heart of eligibility. However, you persistently ignore my contention that footballing "nationality" is not the same as political "nationality". Otherwise, why would FIFA recognise 208 "nations" (footballing), whereas the UN only recognises 192 "nations" (political)?

Therefore if FIFA is going to abrogate to itself the right to define what is a footballing nation (which it does), then all I ask is that it treat all 208 of them exactly the same (which it doesn't).

Otherwise you end up with the situation whereby Governments' (political) definition of "Nationality" override FIFA's; which might be fine except that FIFA resists such a notion when eg Qatar or Cape Verde tries it (i.e. for Brazilian-born footballers), but permit it when the Irish Republic's Government tries it (i.e. for NI-born footballers).


Weak point.They don't 'need' to play for Ireland in order to have their 'Irishness' assured. The point is, that their Irish nationality allows them to play for the representative teams of the association governing football in Ireland, that being the FAI.Except that that "Irish Nationality" on which you rely is a purely political construct, from a political Government, contrived for reasons which have nothing to do with football.
I contend that FIFA should assert its own definition of "Nationality", which is a solely footballing construct (eg permits Wales, Hong Kong, Macao, Faroes, Palestine etc, even though there are no such politically recognised "Nations") and which includes NI equally alongside ROI.
And that being so, NI/IFA should be entitled to exactly the same territorial integrity as that of the ROI/FAI (and every other Member Association of FIFA).
Otherwise by your reasoning, those footballers born within the territory of the CFB who have subsequently acquired Qatari Nationality, entirely legally and legitimately, should be entitled to represent the Association governing football in Qatar, that being the QFA.

(Btw, the FAI is not the "Association governing football in Ireland [sic]", it is the Association governing football in the Irish Republic)


So, basically, you would like to see FIFA's rules regarding international football team eligibility changed so that instead of being defined primarily by nationality, it is defined by territory alone.No, nor is that what I said.
I'm stating that the starting point for international eligibility should be that of Territory, more specifically the territory of a Member Association of FIFA. Thereafter, the player in question should also have the appropriate (political) Nationality.
And where someone possesses a (political) Nationality outwith that of the Association's territory within which he was born, then he should also be required to demonstrate a suitable "connection" (ancestry or residence) with whichever other Nationality (political and footballing) he wishes to represent. Which is how it works for 207 of the 208 "Territories" within FIFA.




Of course, any criticism of or objection to your proposal must come from an ignorant individual who cares not for the 'wider interests of sport'. It couldn't possibly make sense to any rational individual.If the cap fits...
In the meantime, I am genuinely open to any sensible, rational rebuttal of what I am contending but with respect, you have not supplied one yet.

(Note that I have done you the courtesy of replying to all your points in turn, whether my replies are valid or otherwise. Whereas you have "cherry-picked from my posts, misrepresenting or distorting as you've gone along)


Who is objecting to Johnson playing for Northern Ireland and being happy to have done so?No-one, but once again, that was not my point.
In fact, my point was directed to the likes of Ardee Bhoy, Den Perry, Kingdom Kerry etc, who in castigating the NI team and its fans as all being "anti-Irish, Union Jack-waving bigots" etc, are clearly implying that anyone who plays for NI cannot be truly and authentically "Irish" etc, which must be deeply insulting to players I cited, such as Taggart, Armstrong, O'Neill and Johnson etc.
Of course, if you want to join in with AB, DP and KK etc in subcribing to such a prejudiced and intolerant view, then go ahead.


Anyway, the snide, but obvious implication here is that the likes of Duffy and Gibson are not 'true Gentlemen' or professionals, which is a bit sad. Just get over it.I hadn't intended to conflate directly the notions of "Gentlemanliness" and "Professionalism" from DJ to Duffy and Gibson, though in fairness I can see why you might infer that.
Rather, I was expressing my admiration for DJ (amongst other things for those two exemplary qualities of his), whilst disparaging Duffy and Gibson, for the way they are effectively allowing their political outlook to inform their footballing position, including disprespecting their erstwhile teammates in the various NI teams they chose to represent, then reject.
And in Duffy's case particularly, although he qualifies entirely legitimately for ROI, and I wished him well in that at the time, he greatly compounded his offence when it emerged that at the very same time as he and his Da were publicly professing their gratitutude and affection for NI/IFA for all the help they were giving him etc, at the same time they were privately negotiating to switch to the FAI/ROI.
And when he subsequently tried to justify his deceit by introducing religion into the equation ("Obviously as a Catholic I want to play for Ireland etc"), I lost the last vestige of my former respect for him.

P.S. If you are truly concerned for my ability to "get over it", don't worry, I accept that both those players have made their choice. But I'll be fcuked if I have to respect them for what they did, the reasons why they did it, and the way in which it was done.

[EalingGreen]

Again, you compare apple and pears. You are comparing someone who seeks dual nationality with someone who doesn't.I understand the point you are making, which essentially repeats that of FIFA.
However, I do not see why in principle FIFA should distinguish between someone who happens automatically to have another Nationality, from someone who seeks to assert/apply for another Nationality to which he is legitimately entitled.

[EalingGreen]

So basically your Irish, but see most of Ireland as foreign?I am one of 6 million Irish people, five million of whom have/ascribe to a different political opinion to mine.
Consequently, their Passport is also different from mine, so in that narrow sense, I suppose we are "foreign" to each other.
So Congratulations! Award yourself a Gold Star for having "caught me out", then go to bed, otherwise your mother will be scolding you for staying up late...

[EalingGreen]

Don't you take pride in all the London lads representing your team at the moment?I take pride in the fact that with one exception*, my team is made up of players who were either born in NI, or have at least one parent/grandparent born in NI.

* - The one exception being, of course, Maik Taylor, who qualified under an earlier rule, acceptable to FIFA, which we (IFA/SFA/FAW/FA) have since deleted. Of course, after 80+ caps during 12 years of exemplary and committed service, Big Maik is every bit as much one of the "Green And White Army" as eg Tony Cascarino was one of the "Boys in Green".

[EalingGreen]

And all the other parts of England & Scotland;Just cut out the middle-man and have a GB team.....Never mind more complex reasoning, you appear to struggle with even the simplest concept.

So I will type this once again, only very slowly: I do not want to see a United Kingdom team, just as I do not want to see a United Ireland team. Instead, I prefer to see a Northern Ireland team, comprising of players who have either been born in NI or have at least one parent/grandparent born within NI. Plus Maik Taylor. That is why I call myself a Northern Ireland fan.

Clear?

[janeymac]

I understand the point you are making, which essentially repeats that of FIFA.
However, I do not see why in principle FIFA should distinguish between someone who happens automatically to have another Nationality, from someone who seeks to assert/apply for another Nationality to which he is legitimately entitled.

If you can't accept that, how do you accept that 16 of the 208 FIFA member assocations are an exception to the rule that you must be a political entity to be a member association?

[EalingGreen]

If you can't accept that, how do you accept that 16 of the 208 FIFA member assocations are an exception to the rule that you must be a political entity to be a member association?Because there is no "rule" that you have to be a political entity to be a member association of FIFA. Duh!

For instance, Macao is no longer a "political entity", yet the Macao FA is still a Member Association of FIFA.

Whereas Palestine is not (yet, at least) a political entity, yet there is a Palestinian FA.

And Monaco is a political entity, with a Membership of FIFA, but no international football team.

Therefore, FIFA and FIFA alone determines what constitutes "Footballing Nationality" (my shorthand), as demonstrated by Associate Membership.

And one of the benefits of Membership is that each Member Association is entitled to be treated equally with all the others, regardless of how big or small etc they may be.

Except that when it comes to Ireland (island), FIFA is not treating its two Irish Member Associations equally over the question of Eligibility (imo).

[janeymac]

Because there is no "rule" that you have to be a political entity to be a member association of FIFA. Duh!

For instance, Macao is no longer a "political entity", yet the Macao FA is still a Member Association of FIFA.

Whereas Palestine is not (yet, at least) a political entity, yet there is a Palestinian FA.

And Monaco is a political entity, with a Membership of FIFA, but no international football team.

Therefore, FIFA and FIFA alone determines what constitutes "Footballing Nationality" (my shorthand), as demonstrated by Associate Membership.

And one of the benefits of Membership is that each Member Association is entitled to be treated equally with all the others, regardless of how big or small etc they may be.

Except that when it comes to Ireland (island), FIFA is not treating its two Irish Member Associations equally over the question of Eligibility (imo).

You are wrong about Monaco (even though it is a Principality). They are seeking membership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco_national_football_team

And Macao (& Hong Kong) were political entities and why they have held onto their membership. If they were seeking membership now, they wouldn't get it.

[co. down green]

Except that when it comes to Ireland (island), FIFA is not treating its two Irish Member Associations equally over the question of Eligibility

But didn't the IFA turn down the generous offer from the FAI and supported by FIFA, to allow the IFA to pick players from across the island?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Haven't you noticed my posts on the thread pointing out where I disagree with other unionists?
I want part of Ireland to remain part of Britain.
This makes no sense. Pretty much 100% of unionists in Northern Ireland use the name Northern Ireland. It's part of Ireland, they're Irish.

So you're right and the majority are all wrong now....

Why? Do you think that Britain (as with select others) should have held on to the rest of its illegal empire just because of a whim of some of the settlers who colonized it, wanted to govern a particular native population, based on their own dubious (& extremely paranoid) values??

Except as Janeymac says below (& far more importantly the local media most recently), the vast majority of unionists in the North, the whole reason the region even exists, see themselves as British!
Absolutely nothing to do with where they reside.


When it comes to how I identify myself politically, that post sums up my own feelings beautifully (though no doubt Ardee Bhoy's fingers are already straining at the keyboard to educate me as to what I do/should/must feel etc)
Well hardly, as various others have far more eloquently put, your 'arguments', especially around eligibility are riddled with flaws and contradictions, so it's doubtful anyone half-wise would take you remotely seriously!
More a source of enquiring bemusment.


However, whatever one feels on the vexed political questions of "nationality" and "identity" etc, I genuinely feel it is (or should be, at any rate) entirely irrelevant to the debate over footballing eligibility.

The GFA specifically includes: "Recognition of 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"
This being the umpteenth example. Of something it has, does and will, regardless of your simplistic world view, even in a footballing context (see below).

Congratulations on finally acknowledging the GFA though.


So its ok for you to decide what nationality you are ok- but not alright for other unionists. Anyway - it would seem you are a minority in what you think. According to wiki (2006):

A 2006 report from the Institute of Governance stated that "Three-quarters of Northern Ireland’s Protestants regard themselves as British, but only 12 per cent of Northern Ireland’s Catholics do so. Conversely, a majority of Catholics (65%) regard themselves as Irish, whilst very few Protestants (5%) do likewise" and that "In Northern Ireland, very few respondents identify themselves as both British and Irish.-

75% of Protestants feel to be British; 12% of Catholics;
65% Catholics feel to be Irish; 5% of Protestants.

Institute of Governance, 2006. "National identities in the UK: do they matter?" Briefing No. 16, January 2006. Retrieved from http://www.institute-of-governance.org/forum/Leverhulme/briefing_pdfs/IoG_Briefing_16.pdf on August 24, 2006.

From that GR, don't think there are too many unionists have the same opinion that you do.
Ah sure this and last week's poll are far less representative than a few fools on a MB!
;)



As for other people in NI, I have long agreed (and stated) that people may support whichever team they like, for whatever reason or none. However, whilst supporting a team must be a matter of choice, playing for a team most emphatically is not - otherwise there would be no eligibility criteria.
So you know better than the GFA now??


However, I simply do not see why someone from eg Derry should be permitted an alternative "choice" on account of their politics, whereas someone from eg Bilbao, Tallinn, East Jerusalem or Pristina etc is not.
Estonia have a team, so do Palestine and Kosovo whilst rejected by FIFA this week, unless they join with Albania, will have to be acknowledged eventually.
What's your point otherwise?


You see, if I followed your principle in allowing my politics to inform my footballing allegiance, then my equivalent would be to try to take pride in watching lads from Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and Belfast representing me on the world stage and as I've said before on this site, a United Kingdom team holds no greater attraction to me than a United Ireland team.

That's as maybe, but sounds a bit like some of your 'underage' teams;Who're the 'beggars' now??
I know who the Hypocrites are!


And we're the "bigots" in all this...
You are, if you insist Irish people can't play for Ireland......
See GFA for guidance?

As for the post about who you support, so what? We know that. It's about what it represents.

Every fan of the North's team can say they're Irish until they're green (or would they prefer 'red-white-and-blue'?) in the face, but even if it was always 11 men from the Ardoyne or Crossmaglen, the people they represent overall see themselves as British as confirmed by numerous other measures, no matter how some of the North's fans protest otherwise.

Hence regardless of what the CAS say, the urge for nationalists or liberal-minded people in the North to represent Ireland will get stronger??
Who could blame them?

[Predator]

Of course "nationality" has to be at the heart of eligibility. However, you persistently ignore my contention that footballing "nationality" is not the same as political "nationality". Otherwise, why would FIFA recognise 208 "nations" (footballing), whereas the UN only recognises 192 "nations" (political)?

Therefore if FIFA is going to abrogate to itself the right to define what is a footballing nation (which it does), then all I ask is that it treat all 208 of them exactly the same (which it doesn't).The 208 member associations are all equally subject to the same rules; in the case of the rules regarding national team eligibility, the rules are applied equally, according to the criteria - the defining criterion being nationality, which, of course, varies from country to country.

American Samoa and US Virgin Islands, for example, are member associations and not countries*. In order to play for them, one needs to be of American nationality and also satisfy article 16, since this nationality allows one to represent more than one association. There is no American Samoan or US Virgin Islands nationality of course - the same could be said of the four British associations, but it is clear that FIFA has established eligibility for associations subject to nationality (article 15) and articles 16 and 17. I suppose you could then call this subsequent eligibility, 'football nationality'.

*The statutes concerning association admission read:
1. Any Association which is responsible for organising and supervising football
in its country may become a Member of FIFA. In this context, the expression
“country” shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international
community. Subject to par. 5 [the allowance of four British teams] and par. 6**below, only one Association shall be
recognised in each country.

**Par. 6 indicates that,
An Association in a region which has not yet gained independence may,
with the authorisation of the Association in the country on which it is
dependent, also apply for admission to FIFA.

(Ah, the joys of 'copy' and 'paste'. See my OWC post (http://ourweecountry.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=28926&view=findpost&p=655343))


Otherwise you end up with the situation whereby Governments' (political) definition of "Nationality" override FIFA's; which might be fine except that FIFA resists such a notion when eg Qatar or Cape Verde tries it (i.e. for Brazilian-born footballers), but permit it when the Irish Republic's Government tries it (i.e. for NI-born footballers).Seriously? Governments' definition of nationality along with certain criteria is exactly what FIFA use to decide eligibility. However, comparing the situation to the Qatari example is silly. You make it seem like the Irish Government acted in a shady, cynical manner, in conjunction with the FAI in order to benefit the country's football teams.



I contend that FIFA should assert its own definition of "Nationality", which is a solely footballing construct (eg permits Wales, Hong Kong, Macao, Faroes, Palestine etc, even though there are no such politically recognised "Nations") and which includes NI equally alongside ROI.
And that being so, NI/IFA should be entitled to exactly the same territorial integrity as that of the ROI/FAI (and every other Member Association of FIFA).Sure we'll see if that contention takes off.

Otherwise by your reasoning, those footballers born within the territory of the CFB who have subsequently acquired Qatari Nationality, entirely legally and legitimately, should be entitled to represent the Association governing football in Qatar, that being the QFA.These players should be entitled to represent the QFA, so long as they satisfy the eligibility criteria (article 17 in this case).


(Btw, the FAI is not the "Association governing football in Ireland [sic]", it is the Association governing football in the Irish Republic)I detect circular movements and pedantry on the horizon.



I'm stating that the starting point for international eligibility should be that of Territory, more specifically the territory of a Member Association of FIFA. Thereafter, the player in question should also have the appropriate (political) Nationality.
And where someone possesses a (political) Nationality outwith that of the Association's territory within which he was born, then he should also be required to demonstrate a suitable "connection" (ancestry or residence) with whichever other Nationality (political and footballing) he wishes to represent. Which is how it works for 207 of the 208 "Territories" within FIFA.Interesting suggestion. You want FIFA to define its own brand of nationality which is purely a football construct, yet you still want political nationality to play a part. So, if a player is born in the territory of the IFA, what should the appropriate political nationality be?



Of course, if you want to join in with AB, DP and KK etc in ascribing to such a prejudiced and intolerant view, then go ahead.Obviously I don't question the 'Irishness' of the players in question, but I do feel that in representing the IFA (one of 'the four British associations', as stipulated by FIFA) one is exercising British nationality. Hardly a prejudiced and intolerant view.



Rather, I was expressing my admiration for DJ (amongst other things for those two exemplary qualities of his), whilst disparaging Duffy and Gibson, for the way they are effectively allowing their political outlook to inform their footballing position, including disprespecting their erstwhile teammates in the various NI teams they chose to represent, then reject. Admire Johnson all you want. He's not a bad player. However, to actively partake in the defamation of two players (and many more) who have made a choice based on personal preference (which may not necessarily be politically charged), is quite simply, petty and definitely reeks of bitterness EG. I suppose that's your prerogative, but all I would say is "take yer oil", it's their choice and theirs alone.


P.S. If you are truly concerned for my ability to "get over it", don't worry, I accept that both those players have made their choice. But i'll be fcuked if I have to respect them for what they did, the reasons why they did it, and the way in which it was done.Even if you don't like their choice, you have to respect their choice. How can you say you accept it, but then proceed to whinge about it?

[ArdeeBhoy]

In fact, my point was directed to the likes of Ardee Bhoy, Den Perry, Kingdom Kerry etc, who in castigating the NI team and its fans as all being "anti-Irish, Union Jack-waving bigots" etc, are clearly implying that anyone who plays for NI cannot be truly and authentically "Irish" etc, which must be deeply insulting to players I cited, such as Taggart, Armstrong, O'Neill and Johnson etc.
Of course, if you want to join in with AB, DP and KK etc in subcribing to such a prejudiced and intolerant view, then go ahead.

Well of course certain parties on here are now discovering their 'Irishness', despite the unionist community which the North's team represents, feeling in the main British.
So excuse me if I criticise the latter and all the attendant and paranoid control freakery about everything else different from them, within their pathetic jurisdiction.

Despite all their fans now being, apparently, 'Irish'. :eek:
Though on the next 12th, you'd better include the S.Beal-feirste N of ISC on the next bonfire, complete with its St.George's Cross bunting and picture of an old 'German' lady!

"Never mind more complex reasoning", indeed.


And I would quite happily ask all the players mentioned if they were happy representing some of the people they were obliged to represent?
And if they would do the same now, or do as Messrs. Best, Dougan & Jennings did in calling for a UI team? I doubt they would just bite their tongue now.

[ifk101]

And we're the "bigots" in all this...

Quite clearly you are because you are intolerant of those who differ to your understanding/ opinion/ viewpoint/ identity. For example, you suggest a "solution"?


Of course, there is actually a much simpler solution staring us in the face, if only people would acknowledge it.

..... which of course is followed by a snide remark aimed at those who dare to disagree.


Of course, such a suggestion will no doubt raise the ire of small-minded individuals who cannot see beyond their own petty political prejudices

You then preceed to belittle the identity of your neighbour, and not for the first time.


I should probably pity those ROI fans from "the North" who will never feel the pride I and my fellow NI fans feel when 11 players from the same wee bit of the world as theirs, put aside whatever political allegiances they may have and march out to take on all-comers from the rest of the world, win, lose or draw.

... and again


Indeed, if we must reduce the debate down to crude simplifications (like eg Shane "I'm a Catholic, so obviously I want to play for Ireland" Duffy), I am immensely proud that my team is made up equally of RC/Nationalist and Prod/Unionist Irishmen, whereas yours derives solely from one subset.

.... we're not all Catholics just so you know. And we don't all share the same political stance. That we hold in common is identification with the Irish nation. Anyways back to more intolerance aimed at those exercising their right to chose a different path to yours ....


..... whilst disparaging Duffy and Gibson, for the way they are effectively allowing their political outlook to inform their footballing position, including disprespecting their erstwhile teammates in the various NI teams they chose to represent, then reject.

... and yet more intolerance (termed respect here) towards those exercising their right to choose.


But I'll be fcuked if I have to respect them for what they did, the reasons why they did it, and the way in which it was done.

And before you vomit out more of your vile, why don't you do us all a favour and read the eligibility statutes instead of using your spin on them to belittle the identity of others.

[Gather round]

So its ok for you to decide what nationality you are- but not alright for other unionists

Er, no. I haven't denied anything to anyone.


Conversely, a majority of Catholics (65%) regard themselves as Irish, whilst very few Protestants (5%) do likewise" and that "In Northern Ireland, very few respondents identify themselves as both British and Irish"

Janey, according to those figures, 20% of Protestants and 23% of Catholics identify themselves primarily as neither British nor Irish. What are they? Hungarian? Some mix of both British and Irish? Invaders from the planet Tharg? You decide.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, pretty much 100% of unionists in Northern Ireland accept and use the name Northern Ireland. By obvious association, both it and they are Irish. Whatever the clearly loaded questions in your opinion survey. Which- again as I've mentioned repeatedly- is typical in only offering a very limited choice of answers.

I'm quite happy defending a minority of one generally, by the way.


In an earlier post you had a little dig at Garech de Brun really being Gary Browne...I suppose it would shock you to know that the current Lord Rosse (whose half brother married the Queen's sister) is actually called Brendan (Brendan was an Irish saint!)

My apologies, no offence attended to you him nor anyone else. I just think gaelicising your name looks a bit funny, that's all. It doesn't shock (or interest) me in the least what some bloke in the House of Lords is called. My only interest in it is when it'll be abolished.


Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit about how British people / those with British heritage have fitted into the 'Irish' nation without proclaiming how restrictive our notion of 'irishness' is

Perhaps you should read what others post before wading in with irrelevant anecdotes about your mates from the aritstocracy. I described as restrictive only any notion of Irishness that er, denies me 100% Irishness.


So basically you're Irish, but see most of Ireland as foreign?

It's quite logical for a unionist from Northern Ireland to see the Republic of Ireland as foreign, surely? They're two separate countries, both equally Irish.


Do you think that Britain (as with select others) should have held on to the rest of its illegal empire just because of a whim of some of the settlers who colonized it, wanted to govern a particular native population, based on their own dubious (& extremely paranoid) values??

I think Northern Ireland should remain part of Britain because that's what the majority British people there want, as demonstrated in every election for 90 years. Whether or not some event 400 years ago was legal, whimsical or paranoid is of lesser historical interest, I reckon.

[Mr_Parker]

Not long to wait now.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-4319-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/

[ArdeeBhoy]

I haven't denied anything to anyone.
You have. That unionists consistently see themselves as as, er, British. To repeat, the clue is in the phrase 'unionist'.


Janey, according to those figures, 20% of Protestants and 23% of Catholics identify themselves primarily as neither British nor Irish. What are they?
As I've mentioned repeatedly, pretty much 100% of unionists in Northern Ireland accept and use the name Northern Ireland. By obvious association, both it and they are Irish. Whatever the clearly loaded questions in your opinion survey. Which- again as I've mentioned repeatedly- is typical in only offering a very limited choice of answers.
Confused? It still doesn't explain the other 80% or so.
But only a miniscule percentage of unionists would reject the collective identity/views of their peers.
As for the questions being 'loaded', paranoia besides, clearly 80% of respondents had no problems answering, which you'd know if you knew the slightest thing about the matter in hand.
You need to lay off the pomposity and perhaps get out more. You could even ask your fellow unionists how 'Irish' they are today.....


It's quite logical for a unionist from Northern Ireland to see the Republic of Ireland as foreign, surely? They're two separate countries, both equally Irish.
I think Northern Ireland should remain part of Britain because that's what the majority British people there want, as demonstrated in every election for 90 years. Whether or not some event 400 years ago was legal, whimsical or paranoid is of lesser historical interest, I reckon.
Except,as quoted repeatedly, the majority of unionists don't see them as 'equally Irish'. The clue's in their name.
And presumably you agree with all illegal colonization done by other cultures, even if the majority in there has been artificially transplanted there against the wishes of the indigenous population??

[dantheman]

Originally Posted by danthemanhttp://foot.ie/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://foot.ie/showthread.php?p=1382102#post1382102)
So basically your Irish, but see most of Ireland as foreign?
I am one of 6 million Irish people, five million of whom have/ascribe to a different political opinion to mine.
Consequently, their Passport is also different from mine, so in that narrow sense, I suppose we are "foreign" to each other.
So Congratulations! Award yourself a Gold Star for having "caught me out", then go to bed, otherwise your mother will be scolding you for staying up late...

Pomp and predictable hot air aside, basically:

Someone born in Newry is 100% Irish
Someone born in Dundalk is 100% Irish

Under the GFA, the person in Newry has a right to an Irish nationality, as bestowed by the Irish government. The exact same nationality as the Dundalk lad/lassie. Not an N Irish identity, an Irish one.

Yet you state that the two people are 100% foreign from each other?

You'll have to forgive me. I have a Masters degree in Engineering and I can't work that one out!!!:rolleyes:

[Gather round]

You have [denied]. That unionists consistently see themselves as as, er, British

You what? I've never denied that any unionist isn't British. Stop posting nonsense.


As for the questions being 'loaded', paranoia besides, clearly 80% of respondents had no problems answering

I'd have had no problem answering. Doesn't mean the survey covers all possible responses, allows for overlap and so on, does it?


which you'd know if you knew the slightest thing about the matter in hand. You need to lay off the pomposity

Who says I don't? I know quite well how these things work, having answered hundreds of them and occasionally devised a few. You need to lay off it and all, your rank-pulling is as pompous as anyone on this board.


the majority of unionists don't see them as 'equally Irish'. The clue's in their name

One's called the Republic of Ireland, the other's called Northern Ireland. Both names are equally Irish. It's obvious.


And presumably you agree with all illegal colonization done by other cultures, even if the majority in there has been artificially transplanted there against the wishes of the indigenous population??

You presume wrongly (no surprise there). I haven't said I agreed with any colonisation, illegal or otherwise. Merely that judging people now based on what their ancestors did 400 years ago is a bit pointless.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Ha ha. More pompous claptrap.

You keep saying unionists in general are Irish.The trouble is they don't!

Ironically when asked, even unionists of your acquaintance confirmed their British status, pretty convincingly.
Clearly you have no real knowledge of their outlook and of course the inevitable pomposity angle speaks for itself.

This extends to your very limited perception of the situation;The two names you refer to are Ireland the country and part of Britain.
While you are surprised that people are protesting against colonization, just like the Palestinians will be doing in the next millennium, and describe it as 'pointless'.

Yeah right, get real.




Do you even read your previous posts on this thread? Or the evidence to counter what you say?
As virtually all of them have been contradicted in that last laboured response.

[Mr_Parker]

A quote elsewhere but no link to the source provided.


NORTH – SOUTH FOOTBALL DISPUTE FINALLY RESOLVED BY CAS

The long-standing dispute between the IFA and the FAI regarding the eligibility of Northern Irish players to play for the Republic of Ireland appears to be over, following an historic ruling today by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland.

The CAS today rejected the IFA’s appeal against a previous ruling by FIFA that former West Ham starlet Daniel Kearns was eligible to play for the Republic of Ireland. The CAS has given the green light for Kearns to continue to play for the Republic, even though the player himself, his parents, and his grandparents were all born in Northern Ireland, and he had previously represented Northern Ireland up to under-17 level, before recently competing for the Republic at the UEFA European under-19 Championships.

The IFA, represented by King and Gowdy, a firm of solicitors in Belfast, claimed that Kearns had no territorial link to the Republic of Ireland and therefore was ineligible to play for the Republic. In contrast, the FAI, represented by David Casserly, a Dublin barrister who appears regularly before the CAS, argued that according to FIFA’s rules (Articles 15-18 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes), Kearns’ dual UK and Irish citizenship allowed him to compete for either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.

The CAS ruling ends a particularly hard fought dispute between the two Irish Associations, which concluded with an eight-hour hearing in Lausanne last Monday. The binding decision by the CAS will have a significant effect on the issue of player eligibility in Ireland, and it paves the way for other Northern Irish-born footballers to declare for the Republic.

The first player to benefit from the CAS ruling is likely to be Everton defender Shane Duffy, who will now be free to play his first official match for the Republic, having had his application to switch allegiance delayed by the ongoing dispute between the Associations.

[co. down green]

The Football Association of Ireland today (July 30) confirmed that it has won the case taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by the IFA in relation to Daniel Kearns.



The landmark ruling vindicates the FAI and FIFA position that players born within the island of Ireland are eligible to play for FAI international teams and provides complete and final clarity on the matter.



The Football Association of Ireland delegation which attended the hearing on July 19 in Switzerland was composed of John Delaney, CEO, Michael Cody, Honorary Secretary and Sarah O’Shea, Legal Director. The FAI was represented by Paul Gardiner SC and David Casserly BL.
Daniel Kearns was represented by Gary Rice of Beauchamps.



The FAI thanks the many bodies which assisted it in this case including the Irish Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport, the Olympic Council of Ireland, the Irish Sports Council, FIFA, UEFA, numerous elected representatives throughout the island of Ireland and many others.


The ruling comes into force with immediate effect and under the terms of the ruling, the IFA will pay all related costs. The FAI would like to take the opportunity to highlight that it has in recent years had good relations with the IFA. Those were maintained throughout this case and will continue into the future.


Welcoming the ruling, FAI Chief Executive John Delaney said;

“Today’s landmark decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirms the FIFA and FAI position on player eligibility. The ruling upholds the right of individual choice on this matter for players born north of the border. I would like to thank the many people from all parts of the island who were strongly supportive during this process, and in particular, recognise the determination of Daniel Kearns and his family to uphold his right as an Irish citizen to play for his country.”

[Deckydee]

We will CERTAINLY hear something today:

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-4319-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/

DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF DANIEL KEARNS AND DAVID REBELLIN TO BE ISSUED BY THE CAS ON FRIDAY, 30 JULY 2010

Lausanne, 29 July 2010 - The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will issue its decision in the arbitration procedure between the Irish Football Association, the Football Association of Ireland, Daniel Kearns and FIFA in the afternoon of Friday, 30 July 2010.
The CAS will also issue its award in the arbitration procedure between David Rebellin and the International Olympic Committee in the afternoon of Friday, 30 July 2010.

[The Fly]

The Football Association of Ireland today (July 30) confirmed that it has won the case taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by the IFA in relation to Daniel Kearns.



The landmark ruling vindicates the FAI and FIFA position that players born within the island of Ireland are eligible to play for FAI international teams and provides complete and final clarity on the matter.



The Football Association of Ireland delegation which attended the hearing on July 19 in Switzerland was composed of John Delaney, CEO, Michael Cody, Honorary Secretary and Sarah O’Shea, Legal Director. The FAI was represented by Paul Gardiner SC and David Casserly BL.
Daniel Kearns was represented by Gary Rice of Beauchamps.



The FAI thanks the many bodies which assisted it in this case including the Irish Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport, the Olympic Council of Ireland, the Irish Sports Council, FIFA, UEFA, numerous elected representatives throughout the island of Ireland and many others.


The ruling comes into force with immediate effect and under the terms of the ruling, the IFA will pay all related costs. The FAI would like to take the opportunity to highlight that it has in recent years had good relations with the IFA. Those were maintained throughout this case and will continue into the future.


Welcoming the ruling, FAI Chief Executive John Delaney said;

“Today’s landmark decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirms the FIFA and FAI position on player eligibility. The ruling upholds the right of individual choice on this matter for players born north of the border. I would like to thank the many people from all parts of the island who were strongly supportive during this process, and in particular, recognise the determination of Daniel Kearns and his family to uphold his right as an Irish citizen to play for his country.”

Source?

[ifk101]

Confirmed on the CAS website now.

http://www.tas-cas.org/press-release

[The Fly]

The fat lady's slightly rotund cousin - has sung!


http://www.tas-cas.org/press-release

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4317/5048/0/Press%20Release%202071%2030.07.2010%20FINAL.pdf


The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has rendered its final
decision in the appeal filed by the Irish Football Association (IFA) against the decision taken by the FIFA Players’ Status Committee on 4 February 2010.

On 3 November 2009, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) submitted a request to FIFA to allow the player Daniel Kearns to represent the national team of the FAI based on his dual British and Irish nationalities. The Single Judge of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee decided that Mr Kearns fulfilled the objective requirements provided by Article 18 of the Regulations

Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes, since the player had never represented Northern Ireland in an official competition at “A” International level. The IFA filed an appeal with CAS on 2 March 2010 and the case was heard by a CAS Panel in Lausanne on 19 July 2010.

The CAS Panel dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision issued by the Single Judge of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee, which recognized that Daniel Kearns was eligible to play for the national team of the FAI.

The full arbitral award with the grounds for the decision will be published by the CAS in a few days.

[Sullivinho]

Marvelous. I look forward to Irishmen from all 32 counties of the island turning out for Ireland (Oops, 'Republic of') without the niggle of petty vindictiveness, their birthright to do so emphatically and unquestionably (re)confirmed.

Someone once posed the question, "Should we stop recruiting NI players?"

Well...

Darron Gibson, Marc Wilson, Shane Duffy et al say no.
The FAI says no.
FIFA says no.
CAS says no.

Collectively, the opinions that matter.

Good luck to Norn Iron in their future endeavors. :clover:

[dantheman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4Wbmp6CQo8

[co. down green]

Ahhhh!! That feels good.

[ifk101]

John Delaney's quote sums it up perfectly

http://www.fai.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101122:fai-wins-landmark-case-at-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport&catid=4:under-19&Itemid=12

"Today's landmark decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirms the FIFA and FAI position on player eligibility. The ruling upholds the right of individual choice on this matter for players born north of the border. I would like to thank the many people from all parts of the island who were strongly supportive during this process, and in particular, recognise the determination of Daniel Kearns and his family to uphold his right as an Irish citizen to play for his country."

[The Fly]

IFA STATEMENT

http://www.irishfa.com/news/item/5842/irish-fa-statement/


THE Irish Football Association is disappointed at today’s decision made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. The Association will not be making any official comment on the decision at this time as the full reasons for the decision have not yet been announced.

This Irish FA has a very successful ‘Football For All’ programme where the main objective of the programme is to make sure that the sport of football is welcoming and inclusive to all members of our society in Northern Ireland and we will continue to drive this initiative forward. We pride ourselves with the fact that all Northern Ireland International football teams have always represented our community fairly. All our programmes – from grassroots football and our Centres of Excellence, to our girls and women's football and disability development programmes - each and every one has always been cross community, promoting ‘Football For All’.

The Association runs many successful grassroots programmes and the numbers participating in these programmes and representing Northern Ireland at all age groups / levels and from all communities, continues to rise.

The Association has worked tirelessly over the last number of years to create a family, friendly atmosphere at Northern Ireland internationals. These changes are the result of years of hard work by proactive, passionate and dedicated Northern Ireland football fans.

Raymond Kennedy, President of the Irish FA said: “I am disappointed by today’s decision but we will continue to develop our very successful and wide range of ‘Football for All’ and community programmes in the areas of grassroots, domestic and International football to ensure that anyone available to play for Northern Ireland will want to do so.”

Finally, the Irish Football Association wishes Daniel Kearns the best of luck in his future footballing career.

[The Fly]

FAI success in player eligibility case
Friday, 30 July 2010 14:50


http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/0730/fai_ifa.html

The Football Association of Ireland has confirmed that it has won the case taken to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) by the IFA in relation to Daniel Kearns.

The landmark ruling vindicates the FAI and FIFA position that players born within the island of Ireland are eligible to play for FAI international teams and provides complete and final clarity on the matter.

The ruling comes into force with immediate effect and under the terms of the ruling, the IFA will pay all related costs. The FAI would like to take the opportunity to highlight that it has in recent years had good relations with the IFA. Those were maintained throughout this case and will continue into the future.

Welcoming the ruling, FAI Chief Executive John Delaney said: 'Today's landmark decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirms the FIFA and FAI position on player eligibility. The ruling upholds the right of individual choice on this matter for players born north of the border.

'I would like to thank the many people from all parts of the island who were strongly supportive during this process, and in particular, recognise the determination of Daniel Kearns and his family to uphold his right as an Irish citizen to play for his country.'

[The Fly]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/irish/8872065.stm


http://www.u.tv/Sport/IFA-disappointed-after-Kearns-ruling/b423e695-99d6-46b7-9631-4da1d0628e41

[holidaysong]

That BBC article is awful. Take this paragraph for example:


Fifa rules include a clause allowing players to change nationality once before they play a senior competitive match if they were born "on the territory of the relevant association".

[ArdeeBhoy]

Fair play to the IFA but needs to address the issue of its fanbase, who basically represent British people in the main
and see themselves as such.

Hence this farce of a case....