Player eligibility row

[geysir]

It's still unfair - a player from the North is much more likely to declare for the South than the other way round (excepting those not good enough for ROI who could mercenary their way into the NI setup). I can see why they would want to lock players from their territory, even if I don't agree with it.

Fair/unfair are the current buzz words of UK Political parties, e.g. every utterance on every topic made by the UK Liberal party is littered with Fair/Unfair.
The landscape of our consciousness is being polluted with the meaningless repetitions of the concepts of what is fair and unfair and the political parties are not missing a trick, UK Labour party apparently are more fair and less unfair.

The appropriate words to use are rational and irrational.
Rules and regulations are formulated first and foremost with a rationality and applied with a rationality. Understand the rationale of the rule, then you can judge if it is applied rationally.
Since FIFA first started, the fundamental rationale is that citizens/nationals of a State can play for the representative team.
Nationality is that evident connection. Automatic nationality is the strongest, acquired nationality (in all its forms) comes next.
It would be an astonishing act of irrationality not to allow dual nationals their own choice when those dual nationals are automatic citizens from birth.
Automatic citizenship is the strongest connection a person can have with a State, infinitely more connected to a State than a small fraction of a bloodline existing in a descendant somewhere on the globe.

[Dodge]

They would have lost their credibility, and put their existance in jeopardy. It would be naive to suggest otherwise.

Their credibility is non existant. Their existance is more in jeopardy to the forces calling for a GB team than anything related to an irish team.

[The Fly]

Fair/unfair are the current buzz words of UK Political parties, e.g. every utterance on every topic made by the UK Liberal party is littered with Fair/Unfair.
The landscape of our consciousness is being polluted with the meaningless repetitions of the concepts of what is fair and unfair and the political parties are not missing a trick, UK Labour party apparently are more fair and less unfair.


That's unfair. :p



The appropriate words to use are rational and irrational.
Rules and regulations are formulated first and foremost with a rationality and applied with a rationality. Understand the rationale of the rule, then you can judge if it is applied rationally.
Since FIFA first started, the fundamental rationale is that citizens/nationals of a State can play for the representative team.


That's rational. ;)



Nationality is that evident connection. Automatic nationality is the strongest, acquired nationality (in all its forms) comes next.
It would be an astonishing act of irrationality not to allow dual nationals their own choice when those dual nations are automatic citizens from birth.
Automatic citizenship is the strongest connection a person can have with a State, infinitely more connected to a State than a small fraction of a bloodline existing in a descendant somewhere on the globe.

Nationality is key.


:o

[SwanVsDalton]

Fair/unfair are the current buzz words of UK Political parties, e.g. every utterance on every topic made by the UK Liberal party is littered with Fair/Unfair.
The landscape of our consciousness is being polluted with the meaningless repetitions of the concepts of what is fair and unfair and the political parties are not missing a trick, UK Labour party apparently are more fair and less unfair.

The appropriate words to use are rational and irrational.
Rules and regulations are formulated first and foremost with a rationality and applied with a rationality. Understand the rationale of the rule, then you can judge if it is applied rationally.
Since FIFA first started, the fundamental rationale is that citizens/nationals of a State can play for the representative team.
Nationality is that evident connection. Automatic nationality is the strongest, acquired nationality (in all its forms) comes next.
It would be an astonishing act of irrationality not to allow dual nationals their own choice when those dual nations are automatic citizens from birth.
Automatic citizenship is the strongest connection a person can have with a State, infinitely more connected to a State than a small fraction of a bloodline existing in a descendant somewhere on the globe.

Eh yeah - don't know where in my post I disagree with any of this (or what I did to deserve a socio-political lesson on the meaning of 'fair' ;)). I merely stated why I can see how the IFA, purely in footballing terms, could be disadvantaged by a deal allowing both associations to pick from either territory.

Though as Dodge points out above, in hindsight they would've lost nothing by accepting it. Obviously they had confidence their misguided case was a winner...

[The Fly]

Their credibility is non existant.


The only credibility that matters, is that which lies with their own fanbase. Had the IFA accepted the second proposal, that credibility would have collapsed.




Their existance is more in jeopardy to the forces calling for a GB team than anything related to an irish team.

Much ado about nothing, me thinks!

[Gather round]

.....

[Predator]

The only credibility that matters, is that which lies with their own fanbase. Had the IFA accepted the second proposal, that credibility would have collapsed.Had they accepted the proposal, Irish nationality would have permitted a player to represent the IFA - something which the CAS note that the IFA once tried (and failed) to argue in their favour.
Page 23:
79.The Panel noted that IFA also advanced an alternative argument that Mr Kearns had shared nationality because, as an Irish national (irrespective of his British
nationality), he could play for either IFA or FAI and Mr Hunter asserted that it had always been the case that the IFA could select Irish nationals with a territorial connection to Northern Ireland.
One might also boldly assert that in that case, the IFA and their fans would have truly had that 'shared' team that they so proudly claim represents them. Eligibility for which would have included either British or Irish nationality. Would that have been setting a precedent?

Nevertheless, the IFA probably felt that it would lead to the formation of "Ireland A" and "Ireland B", but as we know, that is but a conjecture. In theory (and in practice), it would have put the IFA at a clear advantage over the rest of FIFA's members - they would become the only member able to select players based on two nationalities, rather than one, if I'm not mistaken.

[ifk101]

The only credibility that matters, is that which lies with their own fanbase. Had the IFA accepted the second proposal, that credibility would have collapsed

How so? The IFA is the original association of the island. By turning down the proposal, they basically rejected the reason the IFA came into existence - ie to administer and govern football on the island of Ireland.

[Gather round]

Fair/unfair are the current buzz words of UK Political parties, e.g. every utterance on every topic made by the UK Liberal party is littered with Fair/Unfair...The landscape of our consciousness is being polluted with the meaningless repetitions of the concepts of what is fair and unfair and the political parties are not missing a trick, UK Labour party apparently are more fair and less unfair

Same with the Greens over here. We should really find something more imaginative.


Their credibility is non existant. Their existance is more in jeopardy to the forces calling for a GB team than anything related to an irish team.

Our existence isn't in jeopardy at all. Who are these 'forces' calling for a GB team, other than Seb Coe and a few stirrers on here?


How so? The IFA is the original association of the island. By turning down the proposal, they basically rejected the reason the IFA came into existence - ie to administer and govern football on the island of Ireland

Hardly. That original raison d'etre ceased to apply when the FAI was set up, or at least when the IFA stopped selecting players from the South.

[Charlie Darwin]

They are if they're not born in one of the 4 home nations.

Under the agreement the IFA rejected, they wouldn't have lost a single thing and would've gained the right to select players from ROI.
This has actually been closed. Maik Taylor wouldn't be eligible for the NI side as of 2008 had he not already been capped.

[Dodge]

Much ado about nothing, me thinks!

INcredible you think that considering the hyperbole used in this thread about other small scale stuff

[geysir]

Eh yeah - don't know where in my post I disagree with any of this (or what I did to deserve a socio-political lesson on the meaning of 'fair' ;)). I merely stated why I can see how the IFA, purely in footballing terms, could be disadvantaged by a deal allowing both associations to pick from either territory.

Though as Dodge points out above, in hindsight they would've lost nothing by accepting it. Obviously they had confidence their misguided case was a winner...

True enough, the only connection you have with my reply was that I quoted yours and you had used the word unfair. Apart from that, there was absolutely no connection.
We do indeed live in bizarre times.

[The Fly]

Nevertheless, the IFA probably felt that it would lead to the formation of "Ireland A" and "Ireland B", but as we know, that is but a conjecture.


It's a little more than conjecture. Indeed, that would have been the end result, with an official seal of approval to boot.



In theory, it would have put the IFA at a clear advantage over the rest of FIFA's members - they would become the only member able to select players based on two nationalities, rather than one, if I'm not mistaken.

They already do that.

[Predator]

They already do that.British nationality alone allows one to represent the IFA.

[Predator]

It's a little more than conjecture. Indeed, that would have been the end result, with an official seal of approval to boot.I call it conjecture, because to me, it is.
The two teams would still exist, as would the IFA and the FAI. The IFA's playing pool would have been boosted considerably and for an association with a small playing pool, that, I would think would be desirable. Of course, the IFA would not have had to select any Irish nationals born outside their territory - territory seems to be a sticking point for the IFA - but it would have given them a slight advantage.

What the IFA should have considered was whether two 'mixed' Ireland teams in Ireland would have been better than their current situation. Instead they opted to try to stop Irish nationals playing for the FAI.

[The Fly]

British nationality alone allows one to represent the IFA.

Players born in Northern Ireland do not have British nationality alone.

[Predator]

If you re-read my earlier post I pointed out that, if they accepted FIFA's proposal, the IFA would have been put in a position where they could select players on the basis of two nationalities, rather than one. At present they can only select players on the basis of one nationality - British. Am I mistaken?

[The Fly]

If you re-read my earlier post I pointed out that, if they accepted FIFA's proposal, the IFA would have been put in a position where they could select players on the basis of two nationalities, rather than one. At present they can only select players on the basis of one nationality - British. Am I mistaken?

Either Passport will do. British Citizenship is, however, a 'must' for eligibility for Northern Ireland - the IFA being a "British Association", and so defined by FIFA. Birth in Northern Ireland would effectively prove British Citizenship.

[Predator]

Either Passport will do.I understand, but when did I say anything about passports?


British Citizenship is, however, a 'must' for eligibility for Northern Ireland - the IFA being a "British Association", and so defined by FIFA. Birth in Northern Ireland would effectively prove British Citizenship.This is what I've been saying.

And if the IFA had accepted FIFA's proposals, then Irish or British nationality would make a player eligible for the IFA.

[The Fly]

This is what I've been saying.


You stated that at present the IFA/NI can 'only select players on the basis of one nationality - British.' That's not the case, they select players who are dual nationals.




And if the IFA had accepted FIFA's proposals, then Irish or British nationality would make a player eligible for the IFA.

It would have been lunacy for the IFA to have agreed to such a proposal, for reasons I have already outlined.

[geysir]

Some are getting hung up on the 2 nationality thing.
To FIFA, the proposal seemed regular enough as we all look the same to them,
2 teams in Ireland? - no big deal who play for what team.

[Predator]

You stated that at present the IFA/NI can 'only select players on the basis of one nationality - British.' That's not the case, they select players who are dual nationals.It is the case and you have said so yourself. Dual nationals or not, only one of those nationalities entitles a player to play for the IFA.


It would have been lunacy for the IFA to have agreed to such a proposal, for reasons I have already outlined. Had such a scenario come about, they would have sealed their own fate.It was lunacy to attempt to argue their case at the CAS in the way that they did, but that didn't stop them!

[geysir]

You stated that at present the IFA/NI can 'only select players on the basis of one nationality - British.' That's not the case, they select players who are dual nationals.
You are confused, Predator has gifted you some clarity - I hope you accept:)

[The Fly]

It is the case and you have said so yourself. Dual nationals or not, only one of those nationalities entitles a player to play for the IFA.


Correct, but the player is still a dual national.



It was lunacy to attempt to argue their case at the CAS in the way that they did, but that didn't stop them!

Indeed it was.

But.....despite such an inept performance, and evidence of further incompetence and chicanery over those now infamous Dunloy proposals, I would stop short of pronouncing them completely brain dead.

[sean r]

maik taylor can play for northern ireland despite being born in germany. any one born out side of great britian with british parents can play for any of the 4 home countries. matt lessier and grame lasaux also used that rule as the channel islands are not part of the uk.

[Predator]

Fly, I think you're spending too much time on OWC; you're picking up some bad habits from them. :p

[Charlie Darwin]

maik taylor can play for northern ireland despite being born in germany. any one born out side of great britian with british parents can play for any of the 4 home countries. matt lessier and grame lasaux also used that rule as the channel islands are not part of the uk.
That loophole has been closed. Maik Taylor would no longer be eligible for Northern Irelad and Le Saux/Le Tissier would only be eligible for England as the Channel Islands' associations are members of the English FA.

[The Fly]

Fly, I think you're spending too much time on OWC; you're picking up some bad habits from them. :p

Never!! Never!! Never!!

[geysir]

UK passport holders are governed by the terms outlined in eligibility article 16.
That article is taken from the UK agreement of the 4 UK federations.

Le Tissier and Le Saux would qualify for England based on residency alone.

[Charlie Darwin]

But the Channel Islands aren't members of FIFA so they'd be subsumed into England.

[The Fly]

You are confused, Predator has gifted you some clarity - I hope you accept:)

T'was just a simple crossing of wires.

[geysir]

But the Channel Islands aren't members of FIFA so they'd be subsumed into England.
Doesn't matter what federation the Channel Islands are connected to, as nationality is the key eligibility criteria.
The Channel Islands could be inside the French FA but it doesn't mean the players can play for France.

A Channel Islander is British and can chose which of the UK federation he wants, as long as he fulfills residency or some blood connection.

[SkStu]

so, are we done here?

[Charlie Darwin]

Doesn't matter what federation the Channel Islands are connected to, as nationality is the key eligibility criteria.
The Channel Islands could be inside the French FA but it doesn't mean the players can play for France.

A Channel Islander is British and can chose which of the UK federation he wants, as long as he fulfills residency or some blood connection.
I bet you're wrong.

[boovidge]

he's right, channel islanders can play for any of the home nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Le_Tissier#International_career


As a Channel Islander, he was eligible for any of the Home Nations teams. Electing to play for England, he earned eight caps over three years, but failed to score at international level.

[Charlie Darwin]

That was 20 years ago and it's also not what he was arguing. A Channel Islander today would qualify for England only because he holds a British passport and was born in the English FA's territory.

[geysir]

No Charlie , the Channel Islands are not England's territory.
The Channel Islands are not English.
A Channel Islander holds British citizenship and will qualify for any of the 4 UK federations according to article 16.

I'll take a bet no problem, and no way will my winnings go to charity.

[Charlie Darwin]

The FAs of the individual Channel Islands are members of the English FA, ergo they must be considered English FA territory. Otherwise inbred Channel Islanders would be ineligible for any national team (although that would probably be the least of their problems).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Football_Association

[geysir]

You are assuming the territory of the English FA incorporates the Channel islands, it doesn't - no more than it takes in Cardiff or Swansea.
The Channel Islands FA have some recognition as a county but without representation as a county on the council. None of the Islands are members of the FA council.

It is commonly known (as much as it is commonly known) that a Channel Islander can chose and is not bound to just England.
Check out the Welsh FA and Brett Pitman (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballnation/football-news/2010/08/24/strike-ace-pitman-could-get-wales-call-91466-27122927/)

How much was that bet?

[sean r]

are the channeel teams allowed to play in the fa cup? i think an islander is british overseas territory but british citizens. can someone from the falklands play for the 4 home countries?

[The Fly]

Meanwhile......with growing uncertainty over Raymond Kennedy's position as president of the IFA, check out where his gives his latest interview on the subject.

(ohh, the irony) ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/irish/9053572.stm

[Charlie Darwin]

You are assuming the territory of the English FA incorporates the Channel islands, it doesn't - no more than it takes in Cardiff or Swansea.
The Channel Islands FA have some recognition as a county but without representation as a county on the council. None of the Islands are members of the FA council.

It is commonly known (as much as it is commonly known) that a Channel Islander can chose and is not bound to just England.
Check out the Welsh FA and Brett Pitman (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballnation/football-news/2010/08/24/strike-ace-pitman-could-get-wales-call-91466-27122927/)

How much was that bet?
Oh come on, the papers thought Arteta was eligible for England until one of the posters here tipped off the Times. They even add a caveat: "if his eligibility checks out."

How much... four pounds? Five pounds?

[geysir]

£5 ??
I want a vantage seat (armchair with foot-rest perhaps?) - right next to Manuela, at the prestigious new Lansdowne Rd.

Re the article, of course it is not proof, but repeats the 'common understanding' that Channel Islanders can choose. And you have offered zilch.
If this were a poker game, my pair of deuces wins the pot.

Channel Islanders could choose before the UK Agreement 1992. Then that 1992 agreement allowed British nationals, with no blood ties to any of the 4 UK assoc, to choose which one. You assume that England's FA territory includes the Channel Islands - therefore the Islander has no choice. There is not the least slither of anecdotal evidence to support your assumption.

Since this thread began I have come to the understanding that when FIFA refer to association territory they are not referring to the the area of jurisdiction for the association. The eligibility of Bruce in 2006 confirms this interpretation. Even if the Channel Islands are under the English FA, they do not reside inside the territory of the English FA.

here is another anecdote - which means I have now a Pair of Threes
Pitman JEP (http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/09/09/pitmans-wales-poser/)
"as a Channel Islander, eligible to play for any of the four home nations and it is widely reported that Wales boss John Toshack has had the former St Paul’s and First Tower United junior striker under consideration for some time."

[boovidge]

I wonder why the channel islands dont have a fifa recognised team? Surely they have as much claim as the faroe islands for example.

[Predator]

Perhaps the Channel Islands have not been granted permission from the four British Associations?
FIFA's rules for association admission state 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.

[BonnieShels]

The one thong that has shocked me in all of this has got to be discovering that the one and only Jeremy Goss is Cypriot!
You think you know someone.

[sean r]

well the do play in some association for non fifa members. with easter island and isle of man. they have there own football accociation dont know why they dont compete in uefa ot in wc qualifiers. perhaps they dont have a uefa standard ground?

[cornflakes]

Uefa would never let them join.
If they let them in they'd have to let Gibraltar in and the spanish wouldn't like that

[Predator]

Uefa would never let them join.
If they let them in they'd have to let Gibraltar in and the spanish wouldn't like thatThey wouldn't have to. I believe it's dealt with individually.
FIFA have articles for association admission and they generally stick to one association per country - subject to certain exceptions. One of those exceptions is the allowance of 4 British associations and the one which I have quoted above.
FIFA's statutes are readily available from their website, if anyone is that interested.

[geysir]

At least the team would play for (the) Jersey.