Eligibility Rules, Okay

[awec]

For anyone interested (and UK-based), the highlights and this discussion are available on BBC's iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011kvqf/Nations_Cup_Football_24_05_2011/

I'm only getting the chance to watch it now so I'm guessing the discussion comes up late on in the programme.

Meanwhile, there's this video where Andy Donlon of Bohs' TV1 "puts the question to the fans of both Northern and the Republic of Ireland on players born in the North declaring for the South" for ExtraTime.ie:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9eUqQY3ukc&feature=youtu.be

Some of the comments are quite bizarre and warped, but I suppose it gives an insight into the level of confusion that unfortunately exists around the issue. A friend of mine suggested that the video makes the NI fans sound like fascists and our fans sound like hippies; dare I say he wouldn't be far wrong? An Orange Order flag even makes a surprise appearance at 2:51.* One NI fan, who's of the belief that Darron Gibson is from Belfast, is claiming that Shay Given was actually born in the north but his birth certificate says he was born in the south. Did the FAI have it doctored for him? :confused:

Anyway, as Bonnie suggests, maybe it would be a good idea for the FAI to defend themselves against the accusations levelled and make a public statement outlining the facts and clearing up the issues once and for all. Or would that give credibility to the accusations? It's all well and good clearing matters up on here, but widespread
confusion clearly still prevails within the wider public, both north and south.

P.S. How did that chap in the background at 1:43 make it into the NI fan section with his Ireland top? Wasn't there a strict policy of segregation in place?

*Not excusing the daft and out-of-place Vatican flag draped across the back of one of our supporters at 2:25, but is it so much of an issue within our support? Unsure myself; just putting that out there.

Probably worth noting that some of those interviewed are probably being interviewed after consuming a pint or ten.

[Sullivinho]

A friend of mine suggested that the video makes the NI fans sound like fascists and our fans sound like hippies; dare I say he wouldn't be far wrong?

As I write this, bathed in the rainbow-esque glow of several lava lamps and enjoying some sitar music that I composed myself, it strikes me that.................um, what was I saying?

[BonnieShels]

Danny it was at the very end of the highlights where Watson and Magilton were spouting.

What can we say.

Maybe we should all get together write up a pamphlet and deliver it to all the media organisations and associations to end this bull. I'm tired of it becoming the issue du jour.

[DannyInvincible]

Danny it was at the very end of the highlights where Watson and Magilton were spouting.

As Trap said in his interview with Watson, it's left to the players concerned to make their decision. There's no FAI coercion or underhand tactics involved. Watson does manage to invent something out of Trap's semi-indecipherable answer when he alleges Trap had told him that FIFA "must sort out this eligibility rule", and Magilton agrees with him, accusing FIFA of hiding, but the fact is that CAS has already clarified matters, the rules are there in their clarity, plain as day for all to see, and every utterance from FIFA on the matter has been clear in reaffirming that the rules are the rules.

BBC Newsline report by Kevin Sharkey on the matter here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13542323

It was clearly produced prior to the game, but I just spotted it on the BBC site there now. Once again, it's possible it's only available for viewing to UK-based users, sorry.

A brief summation: Sharkey points out that dual nationality is open to those born in the north, giving them a choice, and that players from the nationalist community have lined out for "the country of their birth" in the past, and still do. He then highlights how others like Darron Gibson have opted to play for Ireland, however, with "more young players taking the same route"; there being little the IFA can do about it. A man is then interviewed, although it is unhelpful that no identity is provided, but I assume he is an IFA spokesman of some sort; he (surprisingly?) outlines the issue pretty well and in an informed manner. He does mention the Good Friday Agreement, however, as if it's fundamental. In reality, I don't see how it is, given the declarations before 1998, other than it having possibly added a greater sense of legitimacy to the selection of northern-born players. He later talks about how FIFA have laid out their statutes and how these were subject to judicial interpretation by CAS. He concludes that "because FIFA is subject to that jurisdiction, [the judicial interpretation by CAS] would appear to be definitive." Even if FIFA weren't bound by CAS, and I'm not so sure they actually are, as UEFA have yet to permit the Gibralter FA member status despite CAS ruling that it met the required criteria, FIFA's current rules and stance are in line with the CAS judgment anyway.

Sharkey, walking casually across Windsor's hallowed turf, goes on to mention that a particular sore point with the IFA is that it feels it "grooms, nurtures and spends a lot of money on developing these young players with the ultimate aim of having them line out for NI at Windsor Park at senior international level" but the FAI are "reaping the benefits". I feel this claim is open to debate for the reasons I outlined in this post (http://foot.ie/threads/148961-Shane-Ferguson?p=1488364&viewfull=1#post1488364) in the Shane Ferguson thread.

It is made apparent that the IFA "want redress" and then cuts to an ill-informed interview with Nigel Worthington who says the issue "needs to be more black and white" with the "indecision" needing to be "put to bed once and for all".

[Gather round]

In fact it says it all about the quality of your qualifying group that despite how [you've] played you could conceivably end up in the play-offs

Can't see us finishing second, it would probably mean having won two of the three games against Serbia and Estonia home and away. Who would score the goals?

Although it's worth remembering that our group was widely identified as one of the stronger when the draw was made. Give n that there were three of the 2010 finalists in it.

We've been poor: Serbia and Slovenia arguably even more so.

[ifk101]

We've been poor: Serbia and Slovenia arguably even more so.

NI has had an excellent qualification campaign so far. An away win in Slovenia - how many times in living memory as NI won against a team of similar rank to Slovenia? NI has drawn at home to both Italy and Slovenia, both WC finalists and NI had the led in the game away to Serbia.

[Gather round]

NI has had an excellent qualification campaign so far

Ha ha. Morning IFK.

Think of the campaign as a round of golf: achieve par and we have a chance the play-off,

Slovenia, par 1 point, result 3
ITALY, par 1 result 1
Faeroes, par 3, result 1
Serbia, par 0, result 0
SLOVENIA, par 3, result 1

thus far par 8, points 6

FAEROES par 3
SERBIA par 1
Estonia par 1
ESTONIA par 3
Italy par 0

Par for the course 16. To get that now we need three more wins. I think Slovenia will go into their last game (home to Serbia) with 14 points (they'll likely beat Estonia and Faroes and lose away to Italy), Serbia would have 13 if they beat the Faeroes and draw with us and Italy.

[ifk101]

NI has taken 4 points from Slovenia, a WC finalist. That's an excellent return for NI. I'm sure Slovenia would have been targeting at least a return of 4 points from their double-encounter with NI. Prior to these matches, I would have expected NI to take 1 point in Belfast and to lose in Slovenia. +3 points

A draw at home to Italy is a great result. They have a far greater pick of players both in terms of numbers and quality than what's available to NI. I would have expected Italy to beat NI in Belfast. +1 point

It was always going to be difficult for NI to get a draw or win against Serbia away from home but NI did take the lead so they were competitive for a period of time in that game. I would have expected Serbia to beat NI at home prior to the match. +/- 0 points.

The only result so far in the campaign that can be perceived as below par by a NI supporter is the draw away to the Faroes Islands. I don't think NI should see that result as two points lost but rather as one pointed gained. After all the Faroes excel at the ultra-defensive tactics - NI struggle to score goals, the Faroes had the lead in that game and NI did extremely well to get an equaliser. I was confident prior to that match that NI would struggle to win away to the Faroes. A draw on the balance of play was pretty fair. +/-0 points

So to summarise, and in the opinion of a neutral observer :), NI has amassed 4 points more than what would have been expected prior to the playing of these matches. It has been an excellent campaign so far for NI.

[ArdeeBhoy]

The North won't qualify (extremely doubtful we will) and in general we should ignore their collective whining....

[DannyInvincible]

Jim Boyce saying northern-born players who have declared for us would have been better off playing with NI. (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/jim-boyce-northern-ireland-players-who-joined-republic-would-have-been-better-off-staying-put-16006018.html)


Former Irish FA president Jim Boyce has sent a clear message to the young Northern Ireland players thinking about declaring for the Republic of Ireland, stating: “Don't do it”.

Boyce has been dismayed to see several players who turned out for Northern Ireland youth teams recently decide to switch allegiance and go south.

The situation has infuriated the Green and White Army who believe the FAI are taking advantage of the Good Friday Agreement and poaching gifted youngsters from the IFA.

Boyce is aware of the political element in this issue and that young Catholics who have grown up supporting the Republic may want to go down that road, but suggests looking at it from a pure footballing point of view it is the wrong route to take.

He said: “I’m very sad to see so many players switching allegiance. With the situation in the country now I don’t feel young players have any reason, if they are born in Northern Ireland, for not wanting to play for the country of their birth.

“All of these players leaving Northern Ireland are not going to get on the Republic of Ireland team because they have a lot more to choose from than ourselves, yet with us they would be regulars, which is surely better for them than being bit-part players.”

I see the Belfast Telegraph are now attributing to NI fans the mistaken belief that the GFA has anything to do with northern-born Irish nationals being eligible to play for Ireland. If I'm not mistaken, they've consistently been misreporting that along with other incorrect information on player eligibility and the relevant rules themselves for quite some time. As for Boyce, like so many, unfortunately, in a supposed era of cross-community understanding and tolerance, he's clearly missing the point if he sees no reason why a northern-born Irishman would rather play for Ireland, even if it does come at the cost of the player exposing himself to a greater competition for places.

[geysir]

Jim Boyce says "Just say NO" :)

BBC have a well hidden article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/13518826.stm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) about some letter from OWC fans on the eligibility situation.

"We believe this situation to be unique in world football, whereby one national association may select two jurisdictions worth of players," he said.

Eh? what nonsense! Any 2nd generation Irish national, born anywhere in the world, can declare for the FAI under article 15.
First generation Irish nationals born in the North, have the same FIFA eligibility right (to declare for the FAI) as any 2nd generation Irish national, born anywhere in the world. Many other countries have similar citizenship laws (Jus sanguinis).
"Unique", my hole!
Now they want FIFA to change the rules to fit in with their narrow ignorant world view.

[Gather round]

We believe this situation to be unique in world football, whereby one national association may select two jurisdictions worth of players


Eh? what nonsense! Any 2nd generation Irish national, born anywhere in the world, can declare for the FAI under article 15. First generation Irish nationals born in the North, have the same FIFA eligibility right (to declare for the FAI) as any 2nd generation Irish national, born anywhere in the world. Many other countries have similar citizenship laws..."Unique", my hole!

Other countries may have similar laws (where pretty much everyone in the country automatically qualifies for citizenship of another country), but I can't think of any off-hand. Can you remind me?


Jus sanguinis

This always reminds me of an exotic cocktail, like a bloody Mary. The literal 'blood law' sounds a bit sinister...

[geysir]

Other countries may have similar laws (where pretty much everyone in the country automatically qualifies for citizenship of another country), but I can't think of any off-hand. Can you remind me?
That might grate your loyal sensitivities, but Irish citizenship is a civil right, democratically accepted by referenda into constitutional law in both the North and the South.

By this stage we can all accept that what is relevant to eligibility for a national team, is the wording of FIFA article 15.
A player born in another country qualifies for another association if they are entitled to automatic citizenship of the territory

The FIFA rule is
Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country.
Jus sanguinis is that policy of granting automatic citizenship to children of citizens, no matter where in the world the child is born.

Article 15 eligibility applies to all such automatic citizens/permanent nationality, not dependent on residence in a certain country. That applies to all countries who follow Jus sanguinis as part of their citizenship laws. Most European countries adopt the policy of 'jus sanguinis' in their citizenship laws.

So, players born in one country are perfectly entitled to declare for another country, under FIFAarticle 15, if they have that other country's nationality as a birthright. That pretty much shoves the claim of so called "uniqueness" into the rubbish bin, as how it relates to FIFA article 15.

The part that is unique to Ireland is that most all NI born have the choice as a birthright.

[Charlie Darwin]

Other countries may have similar laws (where pretty much everyone in the country automatically qualifies for citizenship of another country), but I can't think of any off-hand. Can you remind me?
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Klose).

[BonnieShels]

Seems Jim Boyce has gone and become a FIFA vice-president... uh oh...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13615860

[Gather round]

That might grate your loyal sensitivities

I don't have any loyal sensitivities- I just treat each issue on its merits. Anyway (as you must know as I've repeated often enough here), I've no problem with you (plural) giving me and everyone else from NI citizenship and the right to play for your football team.


The part that is unique to Ireland is that most all NI born have the choice as a birthright

Er, that was my point (ie, it's either unique Worldwide or pretty close to it).


Germany

Germany doesn't automatically give everyone from Poland (or even Upper Silesia or Miroslav Klose's ancestral village) automatic citizenship, does it?

[French Toasht]

Seems Jim Boyce has gone and become a FIFA vice-president... uh oh...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13615860

I'm not unduly concerned. Firstly on the eligibility issue, wouldn't the CAS decision still be supreme in the area of eligibility. And secondly, the fastest way Boyce could jeopardise his new position is to appear to be looking out for the interests of his own national association. But then again, words like legitimacy, transparency and democracy would not be words that would come to mind when one thinks of FIFA.

[DannyInvincible]

I must look into it, but I'd imagine a rule change would require widespread support from the various member associations. What powers does a FIFA vice-president actually have? (Not including behind-the-scenes ones.)

[geysir]

Er, that was my point (ie, it's either unique Worldwide or pretty close to it).

What is relevant is the FIFA statute 15 and as I pointed out, its application to citizens born outside its borders is not unique to Ireland.

If the IFA started a lobby to get 66% to support a proposal for a rule change, a change that radically alters the basis for International eligibility
just because some Irish citizens chose not to play for them, I would hazard a guess that they would get one or two votes at most.

[BonnieShels]

Perceived power is very important here. If Boyce is seen as a power broker in comparison to the puny FAI then we could be in trouble down the line. Now what Delaney should do us align himself like a good boy to Platini and have his ear in these matters. Because I can see it getting hairy down the line. However the comments about the English FA today show how much respect Is actually garnered by the British associations and the IFA within FIFA.

I still think the FAI need to get their fingers out and start voicing what are the facts in this case so that they aren't behind the curve being seen to be defending a case rather than leading it.

[Stuttgart88]

I must look into it, but I'd imagine a rule change would require widespread support from the various member associations. What powers does a FIFA vice-president actually have? (Not including behind-the-scenes ones.)

I think you're right. CAS' decision was final and binding as it applies to the current rules.

There'd be a lot of opinion against a rule change from North African and other African countries I reckon, because they would all want to recruit players brought up in te French underage system. Boyce would have to win over a whole continent which I think is unlikely.

It's quite scary thatn he is now a FIFA VP.

[SwanVsDalton]

Can't see too much to worry about. It would require Boyce to dispute a CAS ruling and lobby for a controversial and radical change to the eligibility rules - and he didn't get to become VP by rocking any boats.

[BonnieShels]

Can't see too much to worry about. It would require Boyce to dispute a CAS ruling and lobby for a controversial and radical change to the eligibility rules - and he didn't get to become VP by rocking any boats.

Whilst you're 100% correct... it still could get scary and will make the IFA feel that they have a friend in high places.

[DannyInvincible]

From FIFA's webpage for their executive committee (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/bodies/exco.html) (which includes the eight vice-presidents):


The Executive Committee consists of a President, elected by the Congress in the year following a FIFA World Cup™, eight vice-presidents and 15 members, appointed by the confederations and associations. It meets at least twice a year, with the mandate for each member lasting four years, and its role includes determining the dates, locations and format of tournaments, appointing FIFA delegates to the IFAB and electing and dismissing the General Secretary on the proposal of the FIFA President. (Art. 30 and 31 of the Statutes).

I imagine that list isn't exhaustive as it seems to state that those duties mentioned are just some of the duties included in the executive committee's overall role. Anyway, of what's mentioned there, whilst the executive committee will have influence over who is appointed to the IFAB, the IFAB, as far as I can make out, helps only to determine the Laws of the Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_the_Game_(association_football)), or how the game is played, in other words. There's no indication that those respective associations that form the IFAB have any greater say than any other association when it comes to deciding the FIFA statutes and the regulations governing the application of those statutes, which deal with what one might call the administrative side of the game, including eligibility issues.

From the statutes' webpage (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/statutes.html):


Changes to the FIFA Statutes can only be made by the FIFA Congress (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/bodies/congress.html) and require a three-quarter majority of the associations present and eligible to vote.

FIFA's congress is separate from its executive committee and it is essentially just another term for the coming together of all of FIFA's member associations to vote on a particular matter, with each member association being accorded one vote, of course, "in the spirit of true democracy". Apparently...

On the surface then, it would appear that Jim Boyce isn't really in any significant or improved position to influence a change of the statutes from when he was, say, the president of a "mere" association, the IFA. Either way, he is just one vice-president and I can't envisage a rule-change on the eligibility issue anyway; article 15 being the general and accepted principle and FIFA, most likely, unwilling to intervene in an issue that would no doubt open a political can of worms for them. Best for them to just leave it be, I'd say. And the last thing Blatter would want right now is an earful from Eamon Gilmore!

[DannyInvincible]

What is relevant is the FIFA statute 15 and as I pointed out, its application to citizens born outside its borders is not unique to Ireland.

If the IFA started a lobby to get 66% to support a proposal for a rule change, a change that radically alters the basis for International eligibility
just because some Irish citizens chose not to play for them, I would hazard a guess that they would get one or two votes at most.

Even if they got 66 per cent of associations to back their proposal, it wouldn't do them much good. Such a change would actually require 75 per cent of support from the FIFA congress, from what I can make out anyway.

[SwanVsDalton]

Whilst you're 100% correct... it still could get scary and will make the IFA feel that they have a friend in high places.

It'll certainly run and run. But I think it could actually get funnier for those who enjoy the IFA getting embarrassed, since Boyce seems more likely to rebuff their petitions in favour of promoting playing for NI by choice rather than coercion (like he did in today's reports about him seeing no reason players couldn't choose NI).

Plus FIFA bun fights is one of the few scenarios where I'm glad we've got Delaney in our corner. With CAS and loads of already nations already predisposed against change, I'm certain Delaney would outmanoeuvre Boyce, should it come to that.

[BonnieShels]

I think the last thing WE'D want is Gilmore going near anything as important as eligibility issues. Best leave him to deal with our lesser foreign diplomacy issues.

[BonnieShels]

It'll certainly run and run. But I think it could actually get funnier if anyone likes the IFA getting embarrassed, since Boyce seems more likely to rebuff their petitions in favour of promoting playing for NI by choice rather than coercion (like he did in today's reports about him seeing no reason players couldn't choose NI).

Plus FIFA bun fights is one of the few scenarios where I'm glad we've got Delaney in our corner. With CAS and loads of already nations already predisposed against change, I'm certain Delaney would outmanoeuvre Boyce, should it come to that.

That's funny you should say that whilst I loathe Delaney and think he's a creep I have to say he's great at the politicking. See the Rooney F episode.

[DannyInvincible]

I still think the FAI need to get their fingers out and start voicing what are the facts in this case so that they aren't behind the curve being seen to be defending a case rather than leading it.

I think that would be a good idea. If anything, at least it might help clear up some of the confusion (or flush out some of the nonsense, even) that seems to prevail.


I think you're right. CAS' decision was final and binding as it applies to the current rules.

There'd be a lot of opinion against a rule change from North African and other African countries I reckon, because they would all want to recruit players brought up in te French underage system. Boyce would have to win over a whole continent which I think is unlikely.

It's quite scary thatn he is now a FIFA VP.

Whilst it's in the interests of FIFA to generally adhere to CAS rulings and appear in some way accountable to an independent external body, CAS rulings aren't necessarily binding upon FIFA, as the Gibraltar Football Association's failed efforts to gain UEFA membership via an appeal to CAS demonstrated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_Football_Association#FIFA_application). UEFA and FIFA just defied the CAS ruling favouring Gibraltar's admission after intense lobbying by the Royal Spanish Football Federation to reject the Gibraltarian application.

Even if the CAS judgment was binding upon FIFA's rules, it would only be so as they currently stand. FIFA could easily amend their rules as they so wished and the judgment would no longer be applicable to or effective upon the new wording. Not that that's at all likely to happen, mind.

You're quite right about the African associations. It was the north and west African francophone bloc that lobbied to have the age limit on an association change lifted in the first place and it's unlikely the IFA will ever have the influence to overturn that development. Unless they could somehow get the French Football Federation on their side in light of the recent disillusionment expressed from figures within that federation who seem a bit disgruntled with French-born players working their way through the French youth academies only to later declare for the country of their parents, usually in north or west Africa.

[SwanVsDalton]

I think that would be a good idea. If anything, at least it might help clear up some of the confusion (or flush out some of the nonsense, even) that seems to prevail.

I don't see what confusion needs to be cleared up other than from a few fans and one association. The FAI responded when they needed to and the facts of the case have been established to all but the most intransigent.

It hardly seems worthwhile rebuffing a collective whinge but if moaning does begin to turn into something more threatening, at UEFA or FIFA, then I'd hope the FAI would be swift to act.

[geysir]

The 4 UK associations have a guaranteed vp seat, one of 8 dwarves. It must be NI's turn for that particular bung.
The only power the UK vp has, is a veto on any proposed change to the rules of the game.

The IFA, if they so wish, can send in a proposal to change any rule at the next congress. They don't need big Jim for that, nor is Big Jim in any position to trade favours for votes.

[Not Brazil]

If Boyce starts to try and throw his weight about in FIFA on the eligibility issue, I would imagine that someone might remind him of the handshake with his FAI counterpart in Belfast almost 12 years ago - this followed a meeting at which Boyce accepted that players born in Northern Ireland could play for the Republic Of Ireland.

Boyce said, following the meeting:

"The issue of Northern Ireland's eligible players opting to play for the Republic was discussed at length with the FAI," said Boyce.

"It was also stressed that if a player made an approach himself, there was little the FAI could do unless FIFA was to change legislation. That, we accept. But at least we have agreed to notify one another should this happen.''

Boyce also stated that he was "extremely happy" with the outcome of discussions at the meeting.

PS. Interesting that Boyce talked about FIFA changing legislation - the clowns in Windsor Avenue recently spent a buck fortune at CAS trying to have FIFA rules upheld. Which they were.

[Charlie Darwin]

Germany doesn't automatically give everyone from Poland (or even Upper Silesia or Miroslav Klose's ancestral village) automatic citizenship, does it?
Fair point, but it just so happens that almost everyone born in the North is ethnically Irish. The rest are welcome along for the ride too :)

[geysir]

There was a proposal at the fifa congress by a Gulf state, to change Eligibility statute 18 (for players acquiring a new nationality)
Required residence is now 5 years - they proposed to lower it to 3 years residence in the new country.

[BonnieShels]

There was a proposal at the fifa congress by a Gulf state, to change Eligibility statute 18 (for players acquiring a new nationality)
Required residence is now 5 years - they proposed to lower it to 3 years residence in the new country.


That gulf state being Qatar who were trying to get a gaggle of Brazilians.

Edit: or the UAE. I thought Qatar were up to that as well. Or maybe they used the UAE as a cover.

[DannyInvincible]

Some more on that here: http://www.goal.com/en/news/14/asia/2011/05/30/2509621/united-arab-emirates-push-for-changes-on-fifas-residency-rule-to-


The United Arab Emirates Football Association (UAEFA) will find out if their proposal to reduce the residency requirements for citizenship is accepted this week when it goes to Fifa congress.

UAEFA want residency requirements changed from five years to three years so it can field a stronger national team.

The rule change would allow UAE to select players over the age of 18 who have lived in the Middle East nation continuously for three years and never been capped by another country, such as Brazil-born Pro League stars Bare and Fernando Baiano.

“It is going to help smaller countries such as us to improve the national team because we would have a bigger pool to choose from," said UAE's head of players' status and transfer committee Dr Saleem bin Suroor al Shamsi to Gulf News.

"Maybe one day we will see a Brazilian play for us. I hope so. That's the idea.

"This country has so many nationalities living here and we want to see some of them represented in our football team.

“Also this would give many more players the opportunity to play international football that they would not have had as their own country would not play them."

And a bit on the subsequent rejection by the congress today: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5irQ92astcUmPklgV5NV9RicVp8vA?docId=7019206


FIFA members rejected an attempt by the United Arab Emirates on Wednesday to speed up allegiance changes by foreign-born players.

The UAE got only 42 votes at the FIFA Congress for its proposal to relax eligibility rules, and allow players aged over 18 to switch after three years' residence instead of five. Following FIFA advice, 153 countries voted against and 11 abstained.

"It seems we are playing with national identity which is the foundation of national teams," FIFA legal committee chairman Angel Maria Villar said before the poll.

UAE football president Mohamed al-Rumaithi had argued change was good for countries trying to qualify for the World Cup.

"Especially for countries which have a small population," Al-Rumaithi suggested. "Along with local talents, we have many expatriate players."

However, the proposal was interpreted as route for richer countries to import overseas players with offers of citizenship.

In 2008, FIFA increased the residency requirement to five years from two, which was seen a fast-track option.

Why didn't the IFA propose a change to articles 15 or 18? :rolleyes:

Anyway, as long as the chairman of FIFA's legal committee is saying things like, "national identity ... is the foundation of national teams", and the vast majority of associations are in total agreement with this, there's not a hope that articles 15 or 18 will ever be amended to conform to the IFA's stance.

[DannyInvincible]

That gulf state being Qatar who were trying to get a gaggle of Brazilians.

Edit: or the UAE. I thought Qatar were up to that as well. Or maybe they used the UAE as a cover.

Yeah, Qatar were up to no good a few years ago in 2004 and FIFA put an abrupt stop to it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/3523266.stm). They were issuing German-based Brazilians who I'm not even sure were ever resident in Qatar with Qatari citizenship for the sole purpose of having them line out for the international team, so FIFA, upon receiving word of the players' intentions, introduced more stringent rules for naturalised players representing national teams after an emergency committee came to meet. After the meeting, FIFA required naturalised players to have undergone two years of residence in order to qualify to play for a particular country, although this was later raised to five years. It remains so currently. Having had a parent or grandparent born in the territory of the relevant association would also have sufficed and still does. This rule-change only applies to naturalised players or players acquiring a new nationality; not those whose nationality is permanent and not dependent on residence.

The UAE made their proposal only recently and had it rejected by the congress just a few hours ago today, but I'd imagine the Qatari association were one of the members to vote in favour of it.

[Stuttgart88]

This rule-change only applies to naturalised players or players acquiring a new nationality; not those whose nationality is permanent and not dependent on residence.Permanent? :)

[ArdeeBhoy]

I don't have any loyal sensitivities
From personal experience I'd dispute that!


it's either unique Worldwide or pretty close to it).
And the situation in Britain with its 4 teams for 4 non-countries isn't?
Barring the Faroe Islands....

[DannyInvincible]

Came across this piece titled 'The Problems with Poaching' in a blog run by a NI sports fan/freelance journalist: http://alexgulrajani.weebly.com/2/post/2011/05/the-problems-with-poaching.html

He attributes the NI game fan boycott to "poaching rearing its ugly head again", which we know to be untrue, and, rather irritatingly, refers to FIFA's statutes on eligibility as "a ruling", as if arbitrarily fleeting in nature, but that seems fairly standard by now, unfortunately.


Given the politically sensitive nature of the situation Northern Ireland find themselves in, there is no practical solution. At club football, if a player doesn’t want to represent that shirt, he’s better off out of it.

Unfortunately for Worthington and the IFA, they don’t have a wealth of talent waiting to don the Green and White shirt. With a population of under 2m, he has a small catchment to start with.

And he’s already cast that net out wide – luring in Derby-born Lee Camp, Burnley-born Oliver Norwood, Sheffield-born Jonny Gorman and Harlow-born (whoop whoop) Adam Thompson.

Worthington is happy to reel in anyone he can that is good enough, and eligible, to play for NI. But this is different to what has happened to NI.

These lads have decided they’re not going to make it with their country of birth – England – and more importantly, England don’t want them. One they might have wanted to keep, Lee Camp, hadn’t been on their radar since his U21 days until his intentions to play with NI were public.

The case of Ferguson is of particular interest as he would be regarded as a future starlet after his debut season in the Premier League with Newcastle and Worthington doesn’t have two many top flight players at his disposal. In this current squad, he has only three – Steve Davis, Nial McGinn and Gareth McAuley who has just moved to WBA.

The issues here are money and development. As long as Northern Irish nationals (and other UK nationals) can access an Irish passport and have Irish nationality, the switching of allegiance will happen.

...

Should the FAI contribute to development in NI? No.

Why? Because it sounds like a partnership and gives the FAI license to ‘purchase’ whoever they want.

What we need is individual tribunals from FIFA for EVERY single case with an individual settlement for EVERY player.

The other solution?

Convince the players, families and communities that they can, and should be, part of Northern Ireland. Get rid of the national anthem, lose the Union flags and build a strong identity that includes all.

That may be hard but it may be the only solution while FIFA drags it's heels.


First of all, FIFA isn't dragging its heals. The persistence of this myth that FIFA has failed to provide clarification or is dodging something here is increasingly annoying considering there are clear rules in place over which an independent judicial body, CAS, has provided ample clarification in a long and detailed judgment. FIFA sided with the FAI in the Kearns case, so its position should not be unclear to anyone, even if they missed the organisation's reiterations on the primacy of its statutes and their application to the Irish eligibility question.

Anyway, the problem with this settlement argument is that it still appears to cast individual players as possessions of associations. The reality is that choice still ultimately rests with dual national players, regardless of an association's future hopes and intentions for that player. Who's to say with any certainty that Lee Camp, for example, wouldn't have been considered an option for England years down the line if his progress and development at club level were to somehow put him in the reckoning? It's unlikely, beyond some sort of English international keeper crisis, but the point is that nobody can say with any certainty. Ought the FA argue for compensation to be paid to them by the IFA under such circumstances? And what would stop them claiming they'd actually had future intentions for him anyway after he'd already been tied down to NI simply in order to extract money from the IFA? Such a system would be vulnerable to rampant abuse.

Even if a northern-born player wasn't to declare for the FAI, it would still be his right to refuse to represent the IFA regardless. By the same token, will there be calls for, say, George McCartney to recompense the IFA for his refusal to represent NI due what I originally believe to have been a disagreement with the IFA, or Lawrie Sanchez in particular? If we were to take the idea further, maybe we could be claiming compensation from Stephen Ireland. :rolleyes: Or what about those players who are deemed to have retired "prematurely" from the international game by fans and association? Should an association have the right to dictate that these individuals still owe something back to the association - that they ever owed something to the association - and thereby either force them to play on or pay compensation? It's a ridiculous idea through and through.

If the concept of compensation was introduced into international football, it would necessitate the invocation of original contractual obligations; that would destroy the essence of international football as a voluntary endeavour.


For someone that has studied the Irish identity in sport and society, I understand (as an outsider) that the bond between a citizen and country isn’t fully in bloodlines and the lines are blurred especially when you don’t even recognise Northern Ireland as a separate entity.

You can’t help where you are born. If you are born into a Republic-supporting family that is the upbringing you have.

Well, at least that's a start...

[ArdeeBhoy]

Hmm, the last quote. An 'outsider' apologist acknowledging the concept of 'Diaspora'. :rolleyes:

Surely not?

[SwanVsDalton]

One for you here DI:

http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/06/02/northern-ireland-soccer-represents-british-northern-ireland-not-erm-northern-ireland/

I'm very disappointed, Slugger I find a fairly interesting and informed forum of debate but yet more total misunderstanding of eligibility rules. If you had the inclination DI, I think a proper response directed to Mick Fealty might be in order.

[Charlie Darwin]

That blog post is a disaster.

[SwanVsDalton]

Totally. Although the secondary points from Parsley are decent, they're totally undermined, yet again, but a complete ignorance of the eligibility rules. Then having someone I respect like Fealty coming along to give it the thumbs-up is just too much...

[geysir]

Wasn't Ian Parsley a spoof character in the Navan Man sketches?

"Firstly, the case itself was straightforward and yet the IFA managed to blow it."
"How that case was lost by the IFA is beyond me."

Like yourself Ian, the IFA didn't have the foggiest.

[DannyInvincible]

One for you here DI:

http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/06/02/northern-ireland-soccer-represents-british-northern-ireland-not-erm-northern-ireland/

I'm very disappointed, Slugger I find a fairly interesting and informed forum of debate but yet more total misunderstanding of eligibility rules. If you had the inclination DI, I think a proper response directed to Mick Fealty might be in order.

I've never posted on Slugger before, but I presume it's just a matter of posting my reply to Mick Fealty in the space provided beneath his entry and all the other comments? I'm not all that savvy to how to amend post lay-outs and such on there either, but I doubt it matters a huge deal. Anyway, I'm going to post the following, unless you think I ought to add something:

@Mick Fealty

I find it both bewildering and inexplicable how such an astounding level of confusion still reigns over player eligibility in spite of the fact that there are clear rules in place to govern it (see articles 15-18 of FIFA’s Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/01/29/85/71/fifastatuten2010_e.pdf), over which an independent judicial body, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, has provided ample clarification in a long, thorough and detailed judgment (see here: http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4385/5048/0/Award%202071.pdf).

This issue didn’t arise out of any “rule change”. Players born in the north have been lining out for FAI teams under FIFA rules similar to those in place today even before the Good Friday Agreement. The likes of Ger Crossley, Gerard Doherty, Mark McKeever and Tony Shields - all northern-born - played for FAI teams between 1995 and 1997. There have been countless others to play for Irish teams between the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and the Darron Gibson saga that seemed to implant the issue in the minds of NI football supporters. The Good Friday Agreement has nothing to do with the application of FIFA’s statutes on Irish nationality so it's frustrating to see it continually bandied about in discussions surrounding player eligibility, especially when the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals to play for Ireland is being attributed to its terms.

Anyway, onto Ian Parsley’s post... You'd think a qualified referee with an interest in the governing rules of the game might have gone to the effort of actually reading and comprehending FIFA's statutes before writing about them. Contrary to your belief, Parsley’s post isn’t the slightest bit “great” at all. In fact, Parsley has as scant and suspect an understanding of FIFA’s rules on eligibility as the IFA he seeks to condemn had when they took their appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Parsley erroneously states:


“In the same way that a British passport does not qualify me to play for Scotland (because I was not born there and nor were any of my parents or grandparents), an Irish passport does not quality me to play for the Republic of Ireland (for the same reason). The 1998 Agreement clearly makes the population of Northern Ireland “British”, “Irish” or both; the qualification requirement remains, however, that the player or parents or grandparents must be born within the jurisdiction.”

Contrary to Parsley’s mistaken belief, a permanent Irish nationality not dependent on residence qualifies anyone in possession of it to play for Ireland, as is outlined in article 15 of FIFA’s Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes. It states:


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

A British passport would not deem Parsley eligible for Scotland for the reason that article 16 ensures that in the case of a single nationality that might normally entitle a player to play for more than one association - id est, British nationality, which would otherwise allow the holder to declare for England, NI, Scotland or Wales - additional criteria will come into effect. Article 16 was specifically included in the FIFA statute book in order to regulate eligibility for the British associations and reads as follows:


“A Player who, under the terms of art. 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions:

a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years.”

This article has no implications for those who possess Irish nationality as Irish nationality permits those who possess it to declare for only one country; Ireland.

If anyone seeks as complete an understanding of this issue as is available, I suggest they have a read of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s judgment in the case of Daniel Kearns. Indeed, as Parsley says, that case was very straightforward - the IFA were always going to lose it - but the IFA lost it under the same misunderstanding from which Parsley is currently suffering; that the terms and conditions outlined in article 16 applied to northern-born Irish nationals.

[SwanVsDalton]

Sounds good to me DI, great post. The only thing I'd add would be to underline the continual ignorance around the eligibility issues in outlets such as the Belfast Telegraph. Maybe release some frustration on the issue - Slugger's as good a place to get a dig in as any!

And yeah it's simply a case of posting in the box underneath once you've registered.

[Stuttgart88]

Danny, you should write a letter to the Belfast Telegraph for publication.

[BonnieShels]

Wonderful post Danny.

One thing this line "There have been countless others to play for Irish teams..." This doesn't read right to me.

[geysir]

The 'id est' bit is impressive. Throwing in the bit of latin brings it onto another level.