Eligibility Rules, Okay

[geysir]

Where does it say that?

Article 17 (d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association.

[Charlie Darwin]

Right, but how do you explain Gelson Fernandes then? Or Nedum Onuoha?

[geysir]

Right, but how do you explain Gelson Fernandes then? Or Nedum Onuoha?

You want answers!! :) I think you have sussed it out already that a kid growing up in a new country, already a national/citizen before the age of 18 doesn't have to satisfy the 5 years residence requirements in article 17 that apply for players who are acquiring a new nationality after they reach the age of 18.
The FIFA rules are not hard on bona fide dual nationals but on the possible abuse of -- therefore that 5 years residence after 18years old.
All afaiu.

[Charlie Darwin]

But if it's not expressly provided for, surely it goes back to Article 15? It's probably an academic point though. I'd imagine most or all naturalised players who are called up to national sides have lived in the country for five years, and from my understanding they don't really police it until U21 level.

[geysir]

The FIFA residence requirement is only for players 18years and older who are acquiring a new nationality and who want to declare for that association.

[tetsujin1979]

Right, but how do you explain Gelson Fernandes then? Or Nedum Onuoha?not sure about Fernandes, but Onuoha had definitely fulfilled the residency prerequisite when he started turning out for the England underage sides.

[DannyInvincible]

Article 17 (d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association.

Is assuming the new nationality not a prerequisite to fulfilling this sub-criteria though? I understand that Cacau, for example, only became eligible to play for Germany in 2009 after acquiring his German nationality. German nationality law stipulates that a German residency lasting at least eight years must be fulfilled in order to become a naturalised German citizen. If he merely had to satisfy the sub-criteria alone, he could have declared for Germany a few years prior and could have been playing for them without even possessing German nationality. Surely that's not correct.


I think you have sussed it out already that a kid growing up in a new country, already a national/citizen before the age of 18 doesn't have to satisfy the 5 years residence requirements in article 17 that apply for players who are acquiring a new nationality after they reach the age of 18.
The FIFA rules are not hard on bona fide dual nationals but on the possible abuse of -- therefore that 5 years residence after 18years old.
All afaiu.

He doesn't necessarily have to grow up in the country and undergo naturalisation though, does he, assuming this analysis is correct? Wouldn't this mean that that hypothetical English-born player whose nationality had been passed down via the birth registration method from an Irish-born great-grandparent through English-born grandparents and parents I was talking about earlier in the thread would actually qualify to play for us under article 15 assuming they'd had their birth registered before they passed the age of 18?


not sure about Fernandes, but Onuoha had definitely fulfilled the residency prerequisite when he started turning out for the England underage sides.

As geysir says, it would appear that the 5-year residency requirement only comes into effect for those who are acquiring a new nationality after the age of 18. Onuoha would have acquired British nationality before the age of 18 and, if I'm reading the thinking of others properly, and they're correct, qualified to play for England under article 15.

[geysir]

Is assuming the new nationality not a prerequisite to fulfilling this sub-criteria though? I understand that Cacau, for example, only became eligible to play for Germany in 2009 after acquiring his German nationality. German nationality law stipulates that a German residency lasting at least eight years must be fulfilled in order to become a naturalised German citizen. If he merely had to satisfy the sub-criteria alone, he could have declared for Germany a few years prior and could have been playing for them without even possessing German nationality. Surely that's not correct.

You are complicating the issue.
The heading to Article 17 is Acquisition of a new nationality
The sub articles outline the FIFA criteria for that new national.
The FIFA criteria assume that the player has already satisfied the citizenship criteria of his new country.
If that country has a 10 year residency requirement, then first the player has to satisfy that requirement to become a citizen.
The player Cacao has to have the German nationality before he can declare for Germany.
FIFA don't confer citizenship.

Article 17 is so construed that an association just cant fast track citizenship for foreign born players who have no connection to that country, in order to have that player available for the national team.

[geysir]

He doesn't necessarily have to grow up in the country and undergo naturalisation though, does he, assuming this analysis is correct? Wouldn't this mean that that hypothetical English-born player whose nationality had been passed down via the birth registration method from an Irish-born great-grandparent through English-born grandparents and parents I was talking about earlier in the thread would actually qualify to play for us under article 15 assuming they'd had their birth registered before they passed the age of 18?
A kid is born in a foreign country and is a citizen of that country. However, he manages to acquire Irish citizenship through having an Irish great grand parent connection. He identifies himself as an Irish national from a young age. If the conditions of article 17 are to be applied, he does not satisfy the criteria of having at least a parent/grandparent connection. But if he was called up the Irish u17 squad, showed his Irish passport (article 15 eligibility assumed) and was selected in competitive underage games and continued to be selected up to senior level, I think it's possible he could slip through the crack. But I would more guess that the FAI have to present proof to FIFA that a player born outside Ireland, satisfies the parent/grandparent/5 year residency requirement.

[DannyInvincible]

But I would more guess that the FAI have to present proof to FIFA that a player born outside Ireland, satisfies the parent/grandparent/5 year residency requirement.

Would that be any different to the Swiss Football Association having to present proof to FIFA that, say, Johan Djourou satisfies the same requirement? (He doesn't, for what it's worth, or at least didn't at the time he received his first cap for Switzerland.) And if so, why exactly? Or are you suggesting that Djourou might have "slipped through the crack"?

[ArdeeBhoy]

I think you just have to write the book rather than worrying about all this minutiae.....

[geysir]

Would that be any different to the Swiss Football Association having to present proof to FIFA that, say, Johan Djourou satisfies the same requirement? (He doesn't, for what it's worth, or at least didn't at the time he received his first cap for Switzerland.) And if so, why exactly? Or are you suggesting that Djourou might have "slipped through the crack"?

How could Djourou slip through a crack? He was adopted by a Swiss national and moved to Switzerland as a baby. He is a naturalised Swiss citizen.
There is no need for Djourou to slip through a crack, he goes in through the front door.

[DannyInvincible]

How could Djourou slip through a crack? He was adopted by a Swiss national and moved to Switzerland as a baby. He is a naturalised Swiss citizen.
There is no need for Djourou to slip through a crack, he goes in through the front door.

Article 17 specifies the requirement of a biological parent, meaning an adoptive parent wouldn't have sufficed, and he hadn't fulfilled any of the other criteria within that article, so his eligibility for Switzerland clearly doesn't arise from that article. In light of that, why would it make any difference for the purpose of an under-18 qualifying to play for a country under article 15 whether he was a citizen by naturalisation or a citizen by registration of descent from a great-grandparent?

[geysir]

Article 17 specifies the requirement of a biological parent, meaning an adoptive parent wouldn't have sufficed, and he hadn't fulfilled any of the other criteria within that article,
Djourou is already a naturalised citizen, well before his 18th birthday. He doesn't have to satisfy article 17 criteria of 5 years residence for a player acquiring a new nationality after reaching the age of 18. END of that discussion ..... unless you learn to say please and thanks :)



why would it make any difference for the purpose of an under-18 qualifying to play for a country under article 15 whether he was a citizen by naturalisation or a citizen by registration of descent from a great-grandparent?
Refer to my earlier opinion.
Imo, technically the player (a citizen by registration of descent from a great-grandparent) acquires a new nationality, so technically I think article 17 applies. Possibly article 15 applies, possibly if citizenship is acquired before he becomes a player. But I don´t think so.
Why? that's just my thought process. Possibly my thought process is prejudiced by reading of players who failed to find sufficient parent/grandparent connection to Ireland, in order to qualify under article 17, even if they had been able to acquire citizenship..
I don't know exactly why I think like this.

[Irwin3]

Wouldn't the difference be that the theoretical great-grandson is taking a permanent citizenship through descent that is not dependent on residency?

[DannyInvincible]

Refer to my earlier opinion.
Imo, technically the player (a citizen by registration of descent from a great-grandparent) acquires a new nationality, so technically I think article 17 applies. Possibly article 15 applies, possibly if citizenship is acquired before he becomes a player. But I don´t think so.
Why? that's just my thought process. Possibly my thought process is prejudiced by reading of players who failed to find sufficient parent/grandparent connection to Ireland, in order to qualify under article 17, even if they had been able to acquire citizenship..
I don't know exactly why I think like this.

But didn't Djourou also acquire a new nationality, even if it was through the process of naturalisation? His original nationality from birth is Ivorian. And wouldn't Djourou's Swiss nationality have been dependent on residence? Technically, that should rule him out for Swiss eligibility under article 15 as well, no?


Wouldn't the difference be that the theoretical great-grandson is taking a permanent citizenship through descent that is not dependent on residency?

That would invoke article 15 rather than article 17. It's something I have considered, and something I considered in relation to the eligibility of Adam Barton and Alex Bruce who qualify for us via grandparents born in the north. I suppose it comes down to the meaning of "permanent"; whether it means the nationality needs to have been permanent from birth or permanent from the moment of conferral. I don't know what FIFA's approach is with regard to that.

[DannyInvincible]

Or is it a case of, say, Bruce or Barton's nationality being acknowledged as permanent but because it's also newly-acquired (after the age of 18?), whilst they "refer" to article 15, they also must satisfy the criteria laid down in article 17? Of course, that would entail interpreting the definition of "territory" rather loosely - as in viewing NI as the territory of the FAI - which is something over which my literal head holds reservation, even if such an interpretation might happen to favour personal interests. I understand that geysir takes the purposive approach to interpreting it, which might well be correct, but I don't think one can be fully certain beyond FIFA actually offering clarification.

[Charlie Darwin]

But didn't Djourou also acquire a new nationality, even if it was through the process of naturalisation? His original nationality from birth is Ivorian. And wouldn't Djourou's Swiss nationality have been dependent on residence? Technically, that should rule him out for Swiss eligibility under article 15 as well, no?
His citizenship isn't based on residence - he hasn't lived in Switzerland since he was 15. Very few countries actually require residence to retain citizenship.

[DannyInvincible]

His citizenship isn't based on residence - he hasn't lived in Switzerland since he was 15. Very few countries actually require residence to retain citizenship.

Sorry, yeah, not having looked through the exact details of the criteria for Swiss citizenship bar this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Swiss_nationality_law#Adoption), I assume his citizenship was acquired after being adopted by a Swiss citizen. I overlooked that for a moment.

I'll use Innocent Emeghara (http://www.goal.com/en/news/89/africa/2010/10/24/2181204/nigerian-born-striker-innocent-emeghara-anxious-to-play-for) as an example then. I'm not certain of the descent of his parentage or whether he was adopted or whatever, but is it fair to assume, for the sake of argument at least, that he has no Swiss descent and wasn't adopted but acquired his Swiss citizenship through naturalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_nationality_law#Naturalization)? Again, not fully aware of Swiss law's stipulations on this bar a Wiki run-down, but is at least one aspect of the naturalisation process not generally a requirement to fulfil a residence of a set number of years? How did Chinedu Vine acquire Irish nationality or Nedum Onouha acquire British nationality, for example, if not through at least some sort of residence clause?

[Charlie Darwin]

I think you're reading too much into the "dependent on residence" clause. They don't actually define what it means but I think it's reasonable to say it's designed to exclude children of, for instance, economic migrants who don't qualify for citizenship but are resident on the basis of a rolling green card or whatever. I don't think that's entirely fair but it's obviously designed to avoid political problems.

I wouldn't confuse "nationality dependent on residence" with nationality acquired through residence. And, also, Djourou (theoretically, had he not been adopted by a Swiss) would still have gained his citizenship through his parents, not residence.

[The Fly]

What's this about Danny's foray into the world of publishing?

(I've been very busy the past few weeks)

[DannyInvincible]

What's this about Danny's foray into the world of publishing?

(I've been very busy the past few weeks)

I'm gradually working on an all-in-one type piece with the aim of clearing up as many of the myths and misconceptions surrounding the issue as I can, as well as giving a bit of background and context to the issue for those reading it from the outside. I came across an Australian blog the other week, for example, that discussed the issue and the blogger seemed to completely miss the point that national identity was the crux of the issue here. He seemed to understand it as a case of mercenaries taking advantage of some FIFA loophole so they might have a greater chance of playing in a World Cup or something.

Most of what I'm including will have been discussed here already but I think it would be handy to have just one coherent piece that can be read fluidly and spread around the web easily. I'll post it up here when I'm happy with it and if anyone wishes to add anything or suggest some tweaks, that'll be great. Sending it off to various media outlets, especially the likes of the Belfast Telegraph, is an idea, or maybe having bits of it published somewhere. It shouldn't quite reach the length of a book. :p

[The Fly]

It shouldn't quite reach the length of a book. :p

It's a pamphlet then? ;)


Whatever form it takes, I look forward to reading this magnum opus.

If you need any help just pm me.

[BonnieShels]

I'm gradually working on an all-in-one type piece with the aim of clearing up as many of the myths and misconceptions surrounding the issue as I can, as well as giving a bit of background and context to the issue for those reading it from the outside. I came across an Australian blog the other week, for example, that discussed the issue and the blogger seemed to completely miss the point that national identity was the crux of the issue here. He seemed to understand it as a case of mercenaries taking advantage of some FIFA loophole so they might have a greater chance of playing in a World Cup or something.

Most of what I'm including will have been discussed here already but I think it would be handy to have just one coherent piece that can be read fluidly and spread around the web easily. I'll post it up here when I'm happy with it and if anyone wishes to add anything or suggest some tweaks, that'll be great. Sending it off to various media outlets, especially the likes of the Belfast Telegraph, is an idea, or maybe having bits of it published somewhere. It shouldn't quite reach the length of a book. :p


I do like the idea of still sending a letter to the BT though in advance of the pamphlet's completion.

[SwanVsDalton]

I do like the idea of still sending a letter to the BT though in advance of the pamphlet's completion.

I'm not sure Steven Beacom et al would be able to make head nor tail of it what with all the facts, logic and properly constructed sentences.

Should someone translate it first?

[DannyInvincible]

Just something I've been wondering in relation to the following reported statement by Jim Boyce in 1999 after his meeting with Bernard O'Byrne:


The issue of Northern Ireland’s eligible players opting to play for the Republic was discussed at length with the FAI. 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.

Should that be "there was little the IFA could do" to prevent it or is it as it should be; that the FAI were in little position to turn away approaches?

[BonnieShels]

I'm not sure Steven Beacom et al would be able to make head nor tail of it what with all the facts, logic and properly constructed sentences.

Should someone translate it first?

Well let's send em the first draft and if that's not published we could send it here (http://www.ulsterscotsagency.com/) for some gibberisation.


Just something I've been wondering in relation to the following reported statement by Jim Boyce in 1999 after his meeting with Bernard O'Byrne:

Should that be "there was little the IFA could do" to prevent it or is it as it should be; that the FAI were in little position to turn away approaches?


I always read it as the "the FAI were in little position to turn away approaches". Which is a fact. WE could hardly claim to represent "Ireland" as a nation (as opposed to a State or Territory) if we were turning people down from playing with us. Just because they happened to be born in Derry, Tyrone, Antrim, Fermanagh, Armagh or Down.

[DannyInvincible]

Well let's send em the first draft and if that's not published we could send it here (http://www.ulsterscotsagency.com/) for some gibberisation.

Not to worry. Seeing as the English explanations never seemed to work, I've been working on an Ulster-Scots version for our northern brethren anyway.

Thon Wee Daftie Rules fae Fitbaa Players frae Norlin Airlann but o Erse Cit'zinshup cus o Thur Fowkgates...

[DannyInvincible]

I always read it as the "the FAI were in little position to turn away approaches". Which is a fact. WE could hardly claim to represent "Ireland" as a nation (as opposed to a State or Territory) if we were turning people down from playing with us. Just because they happened to be born in Derry, Tyrone, Antrim, Fermanagh, Armagh or Down.

I reckon you're probably right, by the way. Either could have made sense, but I just thought that would be a point the FAI would have been making rather than the likes of Jim Boyce for some reason, although CAS did also make a similar point in their Kearns judgment; that had the FAI refused to acknowledge Daniel Kearns' intention to switch or had they made some agreement with the IFA unbeknownst to FIFA, such as the claimed gentleman's agreement, they would have been denying Kearns his rights under FIFA's regulations.

[BonnieShels]

I reckon you're probably right, by the way. Either could have made sense, but I just thought that would be a point the FAI would have been making rather than the likes of Jim Boyce for some reason, although CAS did also make a similar point in their Kearns judgment; that had the FAI refused to acknowledge Daniel Kearns' intention to switch or had they made some agreement with the IFA unbeknownst to FIFA, such as the claimed gentleman's agreement, they would have been denying Kearns his rights under FIFA's regulations.


And thus in that sentence CAS had the IFA squarely over a barrel.

[Not Brazil]

A question for DI and the others who are well versed in the Eligibility Statutes on the forum - apologies if it's been covered before.

The CAS findings confirm that attempts at compromise were proposed by FIFA during the dispute.

One FIFA proposal was that "Every player born on the territory of Northern Ireland, holding the UK nationality and being entitled to a passport of the Republic of Ireland or born on the territory of the Republic of Ireland and holding the Irish nationality could either play for the [FAI] or the [IFA], under the condition that all other relevant prerequisites pertaining to player’s eligibility for a specific Association team are fulfilled”.

This was rejected by the IFA, and, subsequently, accepted by the FAI.

Whilst I am glad that the IFA rejected the proposal, had they accepted it, would it have meant that eligibility of citizens of the Republic Of Ireland would be subject to Article 16 of the Statutes - ie. a player holding only citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland would be eligible to represent more than one Association on account of Nationality?

[DannyInvincible]

It hasn't been covered on here to the best of my knowledge and is an interesting question. It's something I thought about when I was reading through the judgment again of late and I can't say for certain, but I imagine that the criteria laid out in article 16 wouldn't have applied if the FAI were happy to accept it, as that would have presumably ruled out northern-born players from declaring for the FAI, assuming "territory" was to be interpreted literally. In offering such a proposal, it would appear that FIFA were willing to let the two particular associations work within a special set of rules that would transcend certain other stipulations, although, then, it begs the question as to what these "other relevant prerequisites" would have been exactly.

Edit: There is a school of thought, however, that takes a purposive rather than a literal approach and would be of the opinion that it wouldn't matter either way if article 16 was applied to Irish nationality or not as the jurisdiction of the IFA can also be interpreted as the territory of the FAI. I call it the geysir school of thought. ;)

[DannyInvincible]

I should hopefully finish up this piece I'm writing at some point this evening or tomorrow, but if anyone wants to have a look at what I've completed so far, send me a PM and I'll send you what I've done. Any advice or suggestions on tweaking something would, of course, be more than welcome. I'm not sure whether it would be better for me to post what I've written up here and then discuss it in the open or hold back on that for now. It's been suggested to hold back on making it fully public until it's completely finalised in order to maximise impact if it, or some version of it, does end up being published somewhere or shared around the various sites. The idea of peer-reviewing it, if you will, does appeal to me, but what do people reckon?

[BonnieShels]

I think that all draft discussions should possibly be made by pm as if it was to be posted with any errors it could end up being out there in the ether with the errors.

[ArdeeBhoy]

I should hopefully finish up this piece I'm writing at some point this evening or tomorrow, but if anyone wants to have a look at what I've completed so far, send me a PM and I'll send you what I've done. Any advice or suggestions on tweaking something would, of course, be more than welcome. I'm not sure whether it would be better for me to post what I've written up here and then discuss it in the open or hold back on that for now. It's been suggested to hold back on making it fully public until it's completely finalised in order to maximise impact if it, or some version of it, does end up being published somewhere or shared around the various sites. The idea of peer-reviewing it, if you will, does appeal to me, but what do people reckon?
Maybe start a new thread, if you decide to publish it on here. Though IMHO, best to ask people to PM their e-m add. with their poster name so you can be more discerning who you forward this to.....

Which dependent on your response is what I'm happy to do? As I can forward to a few relevant people for their considered legal opinions?

[DannyInvincible]

Maybe start a new thread, if you decide to publish it on here. Though IMHO, best to ask people to PM their e-m add. with their poster name so you can be more discerning who you forward this to.....

Which dependent on your response is what I'm happy to do? As I can forward to a few relevant people for their considered legal opinions?

You'll have to empty your PM box. It's full. Or, alternatively, just PM me your e-mail address and I shall have it with you forthwith.

[DannyInvincible]

Anyone have a copy of today's Irish News, by any chance? My da was telling me on the phone that he came across a piece on page 2 about Daniel Kearns and Darron Gibson in relation to the eligibility issue but wasn't in a position to go into detail. Not sure if it shed any new light on anything really. Suppose I could subscribe online for a week to see it, but would be just as handy if someone could summarise it here.

[DannyInvincible]

Just a query on the "granny rule" here, or, more specifically, the application of article 17 in light of one of the clauses in article 18. I'll take Simon Cox as an example. He qualifies through an Irish grandparent, if I'm not mistaken, and therefore would have had to have registered his birth with the Foreign Births Register where upon his citizenship of Ireland would have been recognised from the date of registration onward. It is generally assumed he would thus have been acquiring a new nationality and, consequently, his circumstances fell under the scope of article 17. There's a clause in article 18, however - the one that ruled out Mikel Arteta from being eligible to play for England -that states as follows:


18: Change of Association

1. If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions:


(a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition at “A” international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an official competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play.
Say, Cox had played for England at under-21 level or whatever and then acquired his Irish nationality just a few months ago at the age of 23 or 24 or whatever, does that clause in article 18 mean he wouldn't actually have been eligible to play for us? I'm assuming it would have. Wouldn't this impact upon some of those other English-born players who weren't Irish nationals from birth and who'd played at England at under-age level but in whom our management was apparently interested?

[Stuttgart88]

Arteta's nationality would have been acquired by virtue of his having fulfilled the residence criterion. At the time he played underage football (competitively) for Spain he didn't fulfill this criterion, so he fails Article 18.1(a). We knew that though.

wrt Cox, my contention is that article 17 may not necessarily apply. Cox may well qualify under article 15's "permanent nationality" clause because foreign birth registration is just a procedural detail, not the determining factor as to whether he is Irish (as one part of his dual nationality). The determining factor is his ancestry, which entitles him to Irish citizenship.

Or, put another way, at the time he would have hypothetically played for England's U21's, he was also an Irish national in FIFA's eyes and hence fulfilling the residence criterion was not necessary. If this is true, then doesn't it help us in our so far elusive quest for a definition of "permanent nationality"?

[DannyInvincible]

Or, put another way, at the time he would have hypothetically played for England's U21's, he was also an Irish national in FIFA's eyes and hence fulfilling the residence criterion was not necessary. If this is true, then doesn't it help us in our so far elusive quest for a definition of "permanent nationality"?

I'm just thinking, would that also negate the need for much of article 17 though? And geysir made reference to it earlier in the thread along the lines of how article 17 "wasn't called the 'granny rule' for nothing". That's assuming article 17 actually is what is commonly referred to as the "granny rule".

[Charlie Darwin]

No. It's the difference between citizenship and nationality - Cox has had Irish nationality all his life but has only had citizenship since he applied for it.

[Stuttgart88]

I'm going to bed and I'll think about it tomorrow.

[DannyInvincible]

No. It's the difference between citizenship and nationality - Cox has had Irish nationality all his life but has only had citizenship since he applied for it.

FIFA don't distinguish between the two though and I assumed that when they used the word "nationality", they were using it in a sense that meant one and the same thing as citizenship. Would that be mistaken?

Unless we look to Irish laws on citizenship, we've no way of deciphering objectively whether someone is an Irish national or not, so how would one prove Cox has been an Irish national all his life. Under what measure? Strictly speaking, Irish legislation does not define Irish nationality; rather it defines Irish citizenship, which is pretty much assumed to be the same thing for official purposes, no?

And are you saying Cox qualifies under article 15 then and is considered by FIFA to have always been an Irish national? If so, what's the purpose of much of article 17 and why is it referred to "the granny rule", assuming geysir is correct?

[Charlie Darwin]

FIFA don't distinguish but it doesn't mean they're the same. Citizenship is proof of nationality but it isn't the same thing.

Having Irish nationality means being entitled to apply for Irish citizenship. Simple as.

[DannyInvincible]

So, in the case of Cox, his acquiring of Irish citizenship was proof for FIFA that he has been an Irish national his whole life?

Is this why FIFA specifiy "acquisition of a new nationality" rather than "acquisition of a new citizenship" in article 17; so as to allow the likes of Cox (and, I suppose, the likes of Adam Barton and Alex Bruce with northern-born grandparents) to qualify under article 15?

Under what instance would someone eligible for Irish citizenship not have been an Irish national his or her whole life? Naturalised citizens, of course, wouldn't have been, but what about fourth or fifth generation "Irish" whose ancestors have passed citizenship down to the preceding generation by virtue of registering with the Foreign Births Register. Are they be deemed Irish nationals before acquiring citizenship, and, if so, who deems them so?

[Charlie Darwin]

I think, as Stutts alluded to, it's to prevent players like Arteta who played U21 for Spain and subsequently became eligible for British citizenship. The way FIFA has interpreted nationality to date is as an automatic entitlement to citizenship, whether it's Cox's grandparent route or Darron Gibson's birthright.

[BonnieShels]

Charlie's on the money here.

[DannyInvincible]

It sounds good. Although what was the case with poor old Kevin Nolan? Didn't he, relatively recently, claim to have been a generation too far out on qualifying for us or something. It transpired that he went back to reconsider playing for us after FIFA had lifted the cap of 21 years after which a player was tied down to an association if he'd already represented them. I've been trying to look for the exact story and can't seem to find it even though I think I discussed it on here myself, but you may recall it anyway. I remember what he said had been a bit convoluted and really not all that insightful - I don't know whether he was claiming he didn't qualify for Irish citizenship or that he didn't qualify to play for us under FIFA's rule - but it was something about his grandfather having been only half-Irish or quarter-Irish, if I recall correctly. I don't know if he was ever able to acquire Irish citizenship via the passing-down-through-descent method, but if he had have been able to acquire it that way, would he have been eligible under article 15 seeing as it would have been an automatic entitlement by virtue of his birth to a registered citizen?

There's a mention of the story I'm referring to here (http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_6785453,00.html) by Sky Sports but I'm nearly certain there was a slightly more in-depth piece on it. Maybe not.


Despite that achievement, Nolan has incredibly never played for England, mainly due to the form of Gerrard and Lampard, and he has thought about switching allegiances to Ireland.

But he does not qualify through his grandparents and at the age of 27 he thinks that his international career is over.

...

He added: "The possibility of playing for Ireland has been brought up a number of times but unfortunately my grandad and my nans are only a quarter Irish, or half Irish, and they need to be fully Irish!

"I did try and cheat like Tony Cascarino did by going over and having 14 pints of Guinness. Didn't work though."

Indeed... :rolleyes:

[SwanVsDalton]

Well, well, well - seems there's a bit of poaching going on! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13769040.stm)

[Charlie Darwin]

Oh Nigel, Nigel.