Eligibility Rules, Okay [Archive] - Page 135

DannyInvincible

07/02/2015, 7:04 PM

Decided to have a quick look at the Qatar squad and straight away I notice the name Mohammed Muntari and decide to investigate. Born in Ghana, moved to Qatar aged 19 in 2013 (from the information available) and is now playing for Qatar since December 2014 having 'naturalized'. How his eligibility can be explained under FIFA eligibility rules, I have no idea?

This Ghanaian articles makes note of him being "coerced into playing for the rich Arab state."
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/SportsArchive/artikel.php?ID=340205

Also some people speculating on his eligibility here:
http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/qatar-2022.2001054/page-49

To get in through the under 18 rule he would have to have been given citizenship before his 18th birthday on December 20th 2011. There is no indication of this and indeed when he showed up in Qatar in 2013 he was registered as a Ghanaian. Knowledge of his 'naturalisation' and qualification as a Qatari footballer was only made when he was called up in December 2014.

Seems like outright breaking of the FIFA eligibility rules. I mean I'm expecting to see some 5 year naturalisations and some pre-18 minor naturalisations through their acadamies, but I honestly didn't expect to stumble upon a case like this.

Hehe, "coerced"; I think that probably has more to do with a poor translation into English of the notion of convincing someone to do something than any Qatari policy of forcing foreigners to move to Qatar and play for their national team. Puzzling find though. Has Muntari definitely been capped by Qatar in a FIFA-sanctioned game?

Irwin3

07/02/2015, 7:13 PM

Hehe, "coerced"; I think that probably has more to do with a poor translation into English of the notion of convincing someone to do something than any Qatari policy of forcing foreigners to move to Qatar and play for their national team. Puzzling find though. Has Muntari definitely been capped by Qatar in a FIFA-sanctioned game?

Yeah, he played in all 3 of their recent Asian Cup finals defeats in Australia.

Irwin3

07/02/2015, 7:35 PM

There is also another suspicious player for Qatar, Karim Boudiaf. Born in France of Algerian-Moroccan descent. Moved to Qatar in 2010 aged 19. His wikipedia mentions him being called up to the Qatar squad in 2013 after acquiring Qatari nationality. It then mentions him being played in friendlies and later making his official debut in 2014. He too played in all 3 of their Asian Cup matches, they may well have also been his first FIFA recognised caps. Clearly the 5 year residence rule is more of a guideline...

Although technically it depends when in 2010 he moved to Qatar. I presume it was after the european season that he left Nancy and he played his first game in Qatar in September 2010. So I don't think he's quite at 5 years yet and certainly wasn't in 2013.

Edit: Like I suspected he transferred to Qatar following the 2010 season. His transfer date to Qatar is given as 1st July 2010 following his spell with Nancy in France.

NeverFeltBetter

07/02/2015, 10:46 PM

Jeez, a harsher spotlight has to be thrown on that by the media at some point right?

DannyInvincible

08/02/2015, 12:06 AM

I know the media articles and Wikipedia are telling us these guys are naturalised Qatari citizens - and there's no reason to doubt such unextraordinary claims, besides the strange and rather glaring fact that such a means of acquiring citizenship shouldn't actually render them eligible to play for Qatar as there has clearly been no fulfillment of the five-year residency stipulation in either case - but can we rule out with one hundred per cent certainty the extremely unlikely possibility that they are of Qatari descent? I suppose if they were of Qatari descent, they wouldn't have had to move to Qatar or wait a matter of time before becoming eligible as they'd have been eligible from birth; Qatar could have been selecting them years earlier. We probably can almost certainly rule such a possibility out then?...

There is a regulation (8.2) that allows players stripped of an original nationality against their will to play for an association representing a new nationality they have acquired. The regulation does explicitly refer to a player having already played for one association (whilst this isn't quite the case here with either Muntari or Boudiaf, you'd imagine the general principle contained therein would nevertheless apply if it was the case that they'd lost citizenship), but it states that if such a player "permanently loses the nationality of that [original] Country without his consent or against his will due to a decision by a government authority, he may request permission to play for another Association whose nationality he already has or has acquired". I know that some African states, such as Cameroon, and others around the globe prohibit their citizens from possessing dual citizenship along with their native one. Unlikely again, but could Muntari (although he never played for Ghana at any level) have argued that he lost his Ghanaian citizenship against his will in acquiring Qatari citizenship? I'm just trying to think of possible explanations here, although their plausibility is admittedly very suspect.

If that were indeed the case for Muntari, it's difficult to see how it would apply to Boudiaf, mind. He presumably holds French citizenship as well as his Qatari citizenship by virtue of being born in France, and France permits its citizens to hold citizenship of a second state simultaneously, so the possibility that he was, at some point, stripped of his French citizenship (and that this extraordinary item of information also failed to make the news when the media were discussing his eligibility), is exceptionally slim, I would say.

Actually, scratch that theory altogether... I've just had a look here and Ghana also permits dual citizenship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghanaian_nationality_law#Dual_Citizenship

I'm trying to think of someone we could email who might be able to shed some light on this? I can't find either player active on Twitter and I doubt FIFA or the Qatari association would bother replying to such a request for info from a member of the public. I think I tried emailing FIFA before for clarification on something eligibility-related and received back zilch. Can anyone think of anyone in the media who'd have the will, means and resources to investigate this perhaps? The British media have little time for FIFA's corruption and questionable practices of late and this has "dodgy" written all over it. Stutts maybe? Do you remember you had a contact who was able to get clarification from FIFA on whether or not Mikel Arteta was eligible to play for England after the British media broadly assumed that he was until the UK Independent(?) corrected the misconception as a direct result of discussion here and your initial probing?

Irwin3

08/02/2015, 12:59 AM

Spot on Danny. I think your reasoning is pretty sound in ruling out those other possibilities.

- Boudiaf was first called up just over 3 years after moving to Qatar aged 23. He then played in various friendlies and I believe unofficial tournaments. I believe the recent Asian Cup games in January were his first FIFA official matches at age 24. List of appearances here: http://www.national-football-teams.com/player/54351/Karim_Boudiaf.html

- Muntari moves to Qatar aged 18 or 19 going by the information available. His wiki says he signed for the club in 2012 therefore he was at least 18 when this happened. He made his first appearance in Qatar in 2013 aged 19 so he was certainly in the country by then at the latest. He is then naturalised and receives a call up after roughly 2 years in the country just after his 21st birthday in 2014.

Certainly in the case of both players it looks as though they have 'waited' for the players to play in official matches. Boudiaf 4 years. Muntari maybe 2 full years.

You would think that a journalist somewhere would be interested in having a look at this. Maybe there's a perfectly sensible explanation that we can't see...

DannyInvincible

09/02/2015, 12:27 AM

'Blatter warns Qatar over imported national team': http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/football/top-stories/Blatter-warns-Qatar-over-imported-national-team/articleshow/46146656.cms

FIFA president Sepp Blatter on Friday warned Qatar against trying to form an imported team for the 2022 World Cup they will host and slammed the foreign team it used at the world handball championships as an "absurdity".

"The nation of 2.2 million faces the huge challenge of forming a competitive national football team by 2022. However, this cannot be achieved by quickly naturalizing players," Blatter said in a commentary for the FIFA Weekly journal.

He said that football's world body does not allow this, unlike the International Handball Federation.

According to Blatter, Qatar's players, who reached last weekend's final at the handball world championships "contradict the spirit of a national team."

The Qatar squad included players born in Bosnia-Hercegovina, France, Spain, Cuba and Montenegro. Several have played for other national teams prior to the tournament, but handball allows players to play for more than one country.

"The fact that sport builds social bridges and brings cultures together cannot be stressed often enough," said the FIFA president, who is campaigning for a new term in May's election.

"However, what happened at this year's men's world handball championship in Qatar stretched this notion to the point of absurdity," he said.

Under FIFA rules, a player has to have been born in the country he represents or his parents have to have been were born there. Otherwise, the player must have spent at least five years living there to qualify to play for the country.

No mention of Muntari or Boudiaf, mind.

NeverFeltBetter

09/02/2015, 12:54 AM

Even discounting journalists, you'd think an Asian Cup opponent would have raised an objection if something murky was going on, right?

DannyInvincible

09/02/2015, 1:21 AM

You'd think so. Unfortunately, losing all three of their games probably didn't help. Even if an opponent was suspicious, would they have the motivation? They'd have little reason to bother getting embroiled in such a matter unless it was worth their while, like needing a result overturned or something. Still difficult to see how Qatar would so blatantly breach the rules though, especially as all eyes will be on them over the next few years.

I've been trying to get some more info on the Qatari naturalisations and stumbled across some interesting unrelated bits and pieces...

This is a fascinating little graphic I came across in the footnotes of this piece (http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/blurred-nationalities-the-list-of-the-23-and-the-eligibility-rules-at-the-2014-fifa-world-cup) on the Asser International Sports Law Blog (the Kearns case got a mention in that) that visualises "the ancestral and international connections between teams" who competed at the 2014 World Cup: http://codehesive.com/wc-ancestry/

http://codehesive.com/wc-ancestry/flat.png

I noticed there was no mention of the Irish heritage of any participating players, so was sure to send an update to alert them to the fact that Wayne Rooney, Gary Cahill and Tim Cahill all have Irish grandparentage. :)

I wasn't aware that David Silva was of Japanese descent. Indeed, here's a photograph I came across elsewhere (https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/fit-to-post-sports/david-silva-chief-architect-manchester-city-050229823.html) with his Japanese mother:

https://media.zenfs.com/en-SG/blogs/sportsblog/silvafamiliabuj1.jpg

By the way, I've also gotten in touch with Asser and a few others via Twitter to see if they'd have any interest in probing further in relation to the Qatari cases that have us stumped.

DannyInvincible

09/02/2015, 1:53 AM

Here's another piece on Gedion Zelalem who was mentioned a few pages back (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1799253&viewfull=1#post1799253): http://www.espnfc.com/united-states/story/2268050/united-states-seeks-fifa-exception-for-ineligible-gedion-zelalem

It talks about him getting a "FIFA exception" to play for the US so that he doesn't have to fulfill the five-year residency stipulation.

When the German-born, Maryland-raised Zelalem acquired United States citizenship last month in Washington, most American soccer observers believed it paved the way for him to immediately represent the U.S. in international competition.

Turns out it didn't.

Zelalem is a naturalized American citizen, as opposed to becoming one through lineage or birthright. His parents and his grandparents were also born overseas, meaning he's subject to a little-known stipulation in FIFA's statutes that would require him to live in the U.S. for five years from Jan. 26, his 18th birthday, before suiting up for the Yanks in official matches.

And since the playmaking midfielder -- who lived in Maryland between 2006 and 2013, when he moved to London to join the Gunners -- isn't about to leave Europe any time soon, meeting that requirement as it's written would appear to be non-starter.

But the U.S. Soccer Federation appears to have some recourse when it comes to Zelalem, as FIFA can and does grant exceptions to players who are able to show that their naturalization didn't violate the spirit of the law.

And since Zelalem lived and attended school in the U.S. long before being spotted by an Arsenal scout, getting the green light could end up being a mere formality.

U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati doesn't seem worried.

"We're going through the FIFA process and hope to have Gedion eligible by March or April," said Gulati, who also sits on FIFA's executive committee, told ESPN FC on Monday. "We don't expect any issues."

For now, though, Zelalem can't play for the U.S., and his eligibility isn't quite the forgone conclusion it originally appeared to be.

There are many cases of naturalised players representing adopted countries on the basis of having acquired a second nationality before the age of 18, which seemingly negates any need to reside in the territory of a relevant association for five years after the age of 18. It would appear that a nationality acquired before the age of 18 is considered by FIFA to be tantamount to a "permanent nationality not dependent on residence", and I guess it makes sense as the players concerned have formally acquired it before adulthood. As Zelalem became a US citizen in December before turning 18 last month, why should his case be any different? Is the author of that piece mistaken when he states that FIFA "does grant exceptions to players who are able to show that their naturalization didn't violate the spirit of the law"? It's quite an unusual claim. Isn't he, in reality, simply referring to the fact that the nationality of a naturalised under-18 is considered equivalent to a permanent one by FIFA?

DannyInvincible

09/02/2015, 10:35 AM

There is a regulation (8.2) that allows players stripped of an original nationality against their will to play for an association representing a new nationality they have acquired. The regulation does explicitly refer to a player having already played for one association (whilst this isn't quite the case here with either Muntari or Boudiaf, you'd imagine the general principle contained therein would nevertheless apply if it was the case that they'd lost citizenship), but it states that if such a player "permanently loses the nationality of that [original] Country without his consent or against his will due to a decision by a government authority, he may request permission to play for another Association whose nationality he already has or has acquired".

I now know this can't apply to either Muntari or Boudiaf, but, I'm wondering out of curiosity, would a player who has acquired a new nationality after having lost his original citizenship against his will/consent due to a government decision still have to satisfy the criteria outlined in regulation 7 (birth, parentage, grandparentage or five-year residence) in order to become eligible for the association of his new nationality? Or would he simply have to have acquired the new nationality to become eligible? Regulation 8.2 isn't very clear on that actually.

Irwin3

09/02/2015, 8:29 PM

Maybe the Gedion Zelalem thing is down to him not currently residing in the country in which he has acquired citizenship to? Another possibility is because he is asking for the FIFA recognition after his 18th birthday has passed. Or like you say, it might be nothing but the usual time for the paperwork to go through. We shall see.

With respect to losing citizenship cases, I suspect that it would come down to a panel or someone making a judgement largely on the grounds of common sense and ensuring that the 'spirit' of the rules was not broken. I wonder if any such cases have even ever happened? Probably not worth thinking too much about if there are no instances of these case or precedences of what occurred in such cases.

I applaud your tenacity on such issues Danny. To be honest outside a brief investigation when I suspect something may not be all above board I try to not think about these kind of things too much. Hopefully there will ultimately be some kind of resolution either through your efforts of getting the word out, or otherwise.

geysir

09/02/2015, 9:04 PM

I now know this can't apply to either Muntari or Boudiaf, but, I'm wondering out of curiosity, would a player who has acquired a new nationality after having lost his original citizenship against his will/consent due to a government decision still have to satisfy the criteria outlined in regulation 7 (birth, parentage, grandparentage or five-year residence) in order to become eligible for the association of his new nationality? Or would he simply have to have acquired the new nationality to become eligible? Regulation 8.2 isn't very clear on that actually.
It's crystal clear that the player who loses his /her nationality permanently, through no will of their own, just has to request a change of association, even if they have been capped at any level previously by the country who stripped them of their citizenship. Considering that, then there is no way on this earth that such a player would be asked to fulfil a 5 year residency, a requirement that was put in place for an entirely different scenario.

And If there are no conditions laid out in article 8.2, then it's up to whoever decides these matters to rubber stamp the request.

article 8. 2
If a Player who has been fielded by his Association in an
international match in accordance with art. 5 par. 2 permanently
loses the nationality of that country without his consent or against
his will due to a decision by a government authority, he may
request permission to play for another Association whose
nationality he already has or has acquired

DannyInvincible

10/02/2015, 1:02 PM

Ha, I naturally see room for uncertainty and ambiguity in the absence of explicit clarity, but I would have sided with your interpretation, geysir, if I'd had to choose. :)

I applaud your tenacity on such issues Danny. To be honest outside a brief investigation when I suspect something may not be all above board I try to not think about these kind of things too much. Hopefully there will ultimately be some kind of resolution either through your efforts of getting the word out, or otherwise.

I've made some headway and have uncovered some new and interesting information, which I'm hoping to share. I'll report back with as many details as I can if and when I get approval from my source. ;)

geysir

10/02/2015, 7:39 PM

Ha, I naturally see room for uncertainty and ambiguity in the absence of explicit clarity, but I would have sided with your interpretation, geysir, if I'd had to choose. :)

You do accept that the grande exception is clearly explicit in the first part? that FIFA have thrown out the biggest permanent non-negotiable stumbling block to a player changing associations and you are looking for absolute clarity? You say they haven't ruled out hidden hurdles that probably only exist in your head?
That, who knows what hidden excuse the the FIFA official can pull out from his sleeve in order to negate the application?:rolleyes:

The conditions from article 7 don't apply as they apply to players who assume a new nationality - under article 7 - and also look to qualify under article 7.
Our hypothetical player is applying under article 8 and under article 8 the cap fits perfectly, with more than sufficient clarity in print :)

There is a similar scenario where regular eligibility requirements are thrown out the window when new associations are formed from the ashes of old ones. All the player's eligibility is simply transferred to the new association, eg with Stankovic.
Afair, the mention of players losing citizenship forcibly, came up during the time around 2003 when Qatar was looking to naturalise those 3 Brazilians, afair, the context was more to do with the issue of players losing their nationality through their own choices and not being forced to do so.

DannyInvincible

10/02/2015, 10:30 PM

You do accept that the grande exception is clearly explicit in the first part? that FIFA have thrown out the biggest permanent non-negotiable stumbling block to a player changing associations and you are looking for absolute clarity? You say they haven't ruled out hidden hurdles that probably only exist in your head?
That, who knows what hidden excuse the the FIFA official can pull out from his sleeve in order to negate the application?:rolleyes:

I was merely seeking clarity and, as stated, would have sided with your interpretation if pushed. I never suggested there were any hurdles that would disqualify an application, nor would I dare. Is it explicit though? I don't see how. Is my head switched off? Where is the "first part" to which you refer? There's simply an absence of any further conditions, no? The article does explicitly mention the acquisition of a new nationality, however; of course, there is a separate article (7) that covers the acquisition of a new nationality ordinarily, so I simply sought to discount with certainty the slightest of possibilities that it might, on the off-chance, apply on top of or in tandem with article 8.2 and no more, I swear! :)

There is a similar scenario where regular eligibility requirements are thrown out the window when new associations are formed from the ashes of old ones. All the player's eligibility is simply transferred to the new association, eg with Stankovic.

Dejan Stanković's eligibility was simply transferred from FR Yugoslavia to Serbia & Montenegro to Serbia because each of those teams were the official successor to the previous one. The present-day FA of Serbia is accepted as having joined FIFA as the FA of Yugoslavia in 1921. Better examples, in terms of the rules going out the window, would be those players who are granted permission to switch to a newly-created FIFA association despite competitive appearances for a still-existing one, no? Mirko Vučinić, for example, played at competitive senior level for Serbia & Montenegro before switching to the completely new Montenegro, where he was born, upon the split of the union. Would Belgrade-born Stanković have been permitted to switch to Montenegro upon the split? Surely not.

Did FIFA, or the Players’ Status Committee, publish any document outlining that the ordinary rules would no longer apply (along with the nature of this exception) in the specific case of Montenegro, or have they ever referred to political splits generally and their effects on eligibility? I'm sure they have somewhere. Did we discuss this before, or am I confusing it with the temporary year-long(?) "clemency" period that was granted to players then over 21 who would have represented and become tied to an association at youth level after FIFA introduced a right to a solitary switch for dual nationals who had not played senior competitive football before the age of 21?

Afair, the mention of players losing citizenship forcibly, came up during the time around 2003 when Qatar was looking to naturalise those 3 Brazilians, afair, the context was more to do with the issue of players losing their nationality through their own choices and not being forced to do so.

Was there a concern that the Brazilians were going to lose their Brazilian nationality and, if so, why? Do we know of any examples of players who have been permitted to play for a new international team on the basis of article 8.2?

DannyInvincible

10/02/2015, 11:13 PM

I was just having a more detailed look through the list of dual/multiple national players on the link to the graphic on the last page and came across some interesting tidbits. First of all, we see some instances of the idea of national identity really transcending the limits of political state boundaries in the Balkans with three of Croatia's squad having been born in Bosnia & Herzegovina and two of the Bosnian squad having been born in Croatia. Would anyone ever take seriously an ignoramus demanding that the likes of Bosnian ethnic Croats Vedran Ćorluka, Dejan Lovren or Nikica Jelavić "line out for where they were born"? Or, even more contentiously, nay perversely, imagine demands being made of Kosovar players to represent Serbia...

The page also claims that Samuel Eto'o possesses Spanish citizenship, whilst Alex Song possesses French citizenship. Indeed, these facts appear to be very much public knowledge and are corroborated elsewhere: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/7050416.stm and http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/25060/song-played-against-deportivo-with-an-interim-french-passport/

What is intriguing about this is that Cameroon does not officially permit its citizens to possess dual citizenship, so how these two are permitted to do so, I'm not quite sure. In fact, in 2012, Alex Song was able to acquire, without issue and in the knowledge of the Cameroonian authorities, a French passport from the French embassy in Cameroon after his Cameroonian passport was stolen whilst in Yaounde and he was then able to travel out of the country on said French passport.

Barcelona defensive midfielder, Alex Song was unable to immediately return to Barcelona from international duty with Cameroon; after it was revealed that his passport had been stolen, thus rendering him unable to leave his own country.

Song was able to get a temporary French passport, as he has dual citizenship with both Cameroon and France, and was able to return to Barcelona last Thursday and eventually featured at centre-back in the club`s match against Deportivo, in La Coruna, on Saturday evening.

However, despite the local authorities and Song`s reluctance to provide details on how his passport was stolen, local media outlets have reported that Song`s house in Yaounde was robbed on Monday night, Tuesday morning and the thieves stole not only the passport, but various objects of value within the house.

Yet, the French Embassy in Yaounde was able to issue Song a temporary passport, in order for the former Arsenal man to make the trip back to Catalunya.

Maybe the prohibition on dual citizenship is something that just isn't rigourously enforced by the Cameroonian authorities?...

I wasn't aware of this either, but Song moved to France at the age of 16 to play for Bastia and, according to Wikipedia, actually played for France at under-16 level. I wonder was he in possession of French citizenship at the time or did he only acquire it after residing in France for roughly half a decade after this whilst playing for Bastia. I suspect this under-16 game was not a competitive fixture as my understanding is that FIFA recognise only under-17, under-19 and under-21 levels, so even if he wasn't actually a French citizen at the time, it probably wouldn't have mattered a huge deal. Indeed, we've had a few English Everton youngsters - Gerard Kinsella and Jay Wallace - represent us in under-age friendlies despite them not being eligible at all. Fair enough, Kinsella sounds like he could be Irish, but Wallace?!

Does anyone know if France-born Cameroonians Benoît Assou-Ekotto or Sébastien Bassong require work permits to play in England? If not, and I suspect not as I can't see any mention of them ever having had to apply for them, having done a quick Google search, they are both probably still in simultaneous possession of their French (EU) citizenship by virtue of having been born and raised in Arras and Paris, respectively.

Just to get back to the idea of loss of nationality (as mentioned in article 8.2) though; if, say, Cameroon did decide for whatever reason to rigourously enforce its Cameroonian citizenship-only rule and Alex Song was stripped of his citizenship against his will on the basis of his simultaneous possession of French citizenship, would or could he become eligible to play for France upon an application to do so? Could the likes of Qatar, in such a universe, cynically exploit such a situation and offer Cameroonians Qatari citizenship in the knowledge that this would see them lose their native citizenship and, thus, potentially render them immediately eligible to play for Qatar upon successful application? Is that too preposterous a scenario to imagine?

osarusan

11/02/2015, 7:48 AM

This might interest you Danny. It comments on Cameroon's 'schizophrenic' attitude to dual citizenship.

http://www.dibussi.com/2006/05/dual_citizenshi.html

BonnieShels

11/02/2015, 1:51 PM

Just the man.

Wasn't it yourself Osa who brought up Japan's blind-eye to dual citizenship some pages back in relation to a potential Irish recruit in that they won't act if they don't know?

osarusan

11/02/2015, 9:55 PM

Yes, they are aware of people who are dual nationals but choose to do nothing about it.

It is somewhat different for a foreign national who wants to become a Japanese citizen - they seem to be more insistent that the person gives up their other nationality, but not for those who are either dual citizens from birth or who take up another citizenship later in life.

Stuttgart88

20/02/2015, 4:14 PM

Stuttgart88

20/02/2015, 4:24 PM

I just tweeted Danny's blog to him.

DannyInvincible

20/02/2015, 4:30 PM

Came across an interesting case of a player from present-day Georgia - Akhrik Tsveiba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhrik_Tsveiba) - who represented four different countries between 1990 and 1997; the USSR (18 caps), the CIS (7 caps), Ukraine (1 cap) and Russia (8 caps). It seems he played competitively for the USSR (including at Italia '90) and CIS (including at Euro '92), but then played in a friendly for Ukraine in 1993 whilst attached to Dynamo Kyiv before FIFA permitted him to represent Russia competitively during qualification for France '98.

It's clearly not exhaustive, but I thought this was an interesting list of nationality transfers in international football: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationality_transfers_in_association_footb all

DannyInvincible

20/02/2015, 5:14 PM

Who is this Frank Feighan TD bloke from Rozzie Land?

http://www.the42.ie/frank-feighan-bipa-fai-ifa-football-players-1950825-Feb2015/

Danny should email him. Paul should make sure he reads it. Seriously. I can anticipate these talks going ahead with every single participant ignorant of the facts.

He's very late to the game, but, God, that's awful. I'm just firing off a stream of tweets to him myself. I hope he takes note.

Stuttgart88

20/02/2015, 6:04 PM

There is also a button on the42.ie underneath the article where you can email corrections directly to the author. You should probably also email his official Oireachtas address.

DannyInvincible

20/02/2015, 9:40 PM

There is also a button on the42.ie underneath the article where you can email corrections directly to the author. You should probably also email his official Oireachtas address.

I've sent the following to Feighan's Oireachtas address lest he goes and embarrasses himself in front of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly on Monday!

Frank,

I read your piece published on The42.ie/Journal.ie in relation to NI-born Irish nationals playing for Ireland and would like to share some thoughts with you on the matter.

I wrote the following back in 2011 in order to debunk many of the myths in the mainstream media surrounding the issue and would urge you to have read: http://playereligibilityinireland.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/fifa-player-eligibility-in-context-of.html

It's been four years since the Court of Arbitration for Sport gave its judgment on this, but, unfortunately, it appears many Irish people remain misinformed and ignorant of the facts and reality of the situation. Sadly, I see you have repeated one or two of these myths yourself in your piece. As a result, I am more than happy to enhance your understanding of the situation so that you can be fully informed on the matter before discussing it in front of the forthcoming British Irish Parliamentary Assembly.

First of all, the GFA has nothing to do with this in substance and insofar as footballing eligibility is governed by FIFA's Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes. Article 5.1 of those regulations 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."

In principle, Irish nationals born north of the border have been eligible to play for the FAI for so long as the entitlement to Irish nationality has been island-wide. Or since 1956, more precisely, with the passing of the Irish Nationality Act 1956. As far back as 1946, the rule governing international footballing eligibility, Art. 21 al. 2 of the Regulations of the FIFA, stated:

“The players (NB. of International Matches) must be selected by the National Associations concerned and be subjects of the country they represent”.

Thankfully, there is a greater awareness of the rules and rights of players nowadays, but, sadly, this was not always the case. Some further information here on how Harry Cavan and the IFA denied northern-born Irish nationals, such as Jimmy McGeough, from representing Ireland in the past: http://www.the42.ie/profile/30794/irish-nationals-born-north-border-eligible-play-fai-3477859/

To the present day, however; the reason northern-born Irish nationals declare for Ireland is because they identify with the independent Irish national identity that is officially channeled through the Irish state. They are as much legal citizens of the Irish nation as you are. Depriving players of the choice to play for their country and compelling or forcing them to play for another association with whom they don't identify does nothing to aid relations or reconciliation. Recognition and respect for/tolerance of identity and difference is necessary for genuine reconciliation, as is recognised and encouraged by the GFA that you are keen to cite.

This situation has already been looked at in great detail by both FIFA and the CAS in the case of Belfast-born Daniel Kearns (http://web.archive.org/web/20110721053357/http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4385/5048/0/Award%202071.pdf). The CAS ruled in the FAI's favour in that case. You might be surprised to note that the IFA had already rejected a compromise offer from FIFA that the FAI were happy to accept by then.

The FAI simply facilitate Irish nationals who are willing and good enough to play for their country. Those players from the north who declare for the FAI make that decision themselves, as is their right protected by FIFA rules. To deprive them of this right by way of governmental intervention or an internal/informal agreement between the FAI and the IFA would be to contravene FIFA's rules, which apply universally and uniformly to the FAI and every other association.

If their public utterances are to be believed, the IFA have since come to terms with rules and have acknowledged the right of Irish nationals to play for their country. Indeed, the IFA have also benefited from FIFA's allowance for players to switch association once (the rule under which northern-born players can switch from the IFA to the FAI). Alex Bruce, for example, played for the FAI (at senior level) before switching to the IFA. He is not the only case.

The prospect of an all-unionist/Protestant community NI team simply hasn't transpired either since the headline cases a few years ago, nor is there any indication it will. To suggest there is "a very real danger that both international football teams on the island might come to represent almost exclusively Nationalist and Unionist communities" is simply baseless scaremongering. Where is your evidence for this? Plenty of players from Catholic or nationalist backgrounds (Niall McGinn, for example) still play for the IFA and will do so in the future.

As to why I think northern-born players representing the FAI is a relatively recent phenomenon, here is another piece I wrote offering further thoughts on that: http://backpagefootball.com/so-what-did-prompt-northerners-declarations-for-fai/34570/

I hope you will take all of the above on board in order to better inform yourself on this matter before your co-chairing of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly.

Regards,

DI.

DannyInvincible

20/02/2015, 11:01 PM

After having been directed his way by the Asser International Sports Law Blog on Twitter (https://twitter.com/Sportslaw_Asser/status/564717736002326529), I’ve been in communication with sports lawyer Yann Hafner (https://ch.linkedin.com/pub/yann-hafner/20/26a/b05) of the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland and have been asking him for his thoughts on the Qatari cases raised by Irwin as well as the eligibility regulations generally. He has been glad to help and, I must say, has been tremendously informative and quick in responding to my multiple e-mails and replies to impart his expertise on a topic about which he has written and spoken extensively (http://unine.academia.edu/YannHafner). He’s presently completing a PhD (Le concept de nationalité sportive: état des lieux, enjeux et perspectives d'avenir) on the matter of sporting nationality/eligibility in international sport, but I linked him to the thread here and he has permitted me to share the information and thoughts he relayed to me by e-mail. I've compiled the information shared with me from various emails into a few posts here. I had promised him I'd let him read what I wanted to share and I didn't want to publish anything without his explicit approval first, so that was the only thing holding me back once I had everything compiled a few days ago and was satisfied it all made sense and was consistent/harmonious. He wasn’t familiar with the specific cases of Muntari or Boudiaf, but what he had to say was all very interesting and it has shed an awful lot of new light on matters for me. In fact, some of what he said challenged the common interpretation many of us here share.

He has helped me compose the following, so I'll simply post it in the order he suggested and as we agreed:

Article 5 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (Principle)

Notion of permanent nationality

Yann first clarified that "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" can refer to both nationality from birth (automatic) and nationality acquired via familial inheritance or a naturalisation mechanism. Article 5.1 is specifically worded the way it is to distinguish from temporary nationality dependent on residence and to preclude the latter form of nationality from rendering players eligible to play for international teams. He said that the mention of "residence" in this article has nothing to do with the fact that most states require an applicant to reside on their soil before naturalisation, nor does it mean that naturalisations cannot be considered permanent and not dependent on residence; it's referring to something else. 

To provide an example of a temporary nationality (dependent on residence), he mentioned the Vatican Swiss Guards who receive the Vatican nationality during their stay in Rome but lose it when they leave. So, as I was saying, naturalisations can and do fall under the "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" umbrella too (unless they're temporary and/or dependent on residence for a temporary duration whilst the holder resides in the relevant state), but obviously further invoke article 7 as they will, by their nature, amount to the acquisition of a new nationality not automatic from birth. (Article 7 is invoked when a permanent nationality not dependent on residence is newly acquired at any age post-birth and secondary to an already-held birth nationality or birth nationalities.)

There is further info on the distinction and confirmation of this meaning of the reference to "residence" here: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/circular_1093_en_33447.pdf

DannyInvincible

20/02/2015, 11:02 PM

Eligibility of non-nationals in the national team of their country of residence

Not directly relevant to the Qatari cases, but he highlighted that it is common practice, as we know, for football authorities to allow foreign players to join the national side of their country of residence to play international friendlies, especially if they are minors, but there was a question then as to what should happen to them once they become adults. He mentioned the case of 17-year-old Cameroon-born Breel Embolo (similar to the case of Gedion Zelalem) who has been representing Switzerland at under-age level (in friendlies only), but for whom the Swiss association are now seeking exemption so that he can represent them competitively.

Article 7 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (Acquisition of a new nationality)

Assuming a new nationality

I asked him exactly what he felt "to assume a new nationality" meant in article 7 and he explained:

This wording aims at casting any kind of mechanism relating the acquisition of a new nationality. Thus, it could refer to ordinary naturalisation, facilitated naturalisation (spouse of a national, under age children, stateless person), people using right of option, etc.

I also asked about newly-acquired nationalities that applied retroactively to birth:

Me: I assume that the "acquiring" of a permanent nationality not dependent on residence that officially applies retroactively (according to the nationality legislation of the state concerned) as if it were from birth falls simply under the realm of article 5, whereas, if the nationality officially applies from the date of acquisition (again according to the particular state's legislation), it is considered to amount to the assuming of a new one and so article 7 comes into play? 

Yann: No. FIFA will consider a nationality acquired at birth only under article 5 and any other nationality (even if under the law of the specific country it applies retroactively) under articles 5 and 7.

He offered as an example of how FIFA will not necessarily follow the lead of the state’s legislation, the body’s treatment of a right of option under the eligibility regulations:

Under national legislations – option right would amount to acquiring nationality at birth. However, under most international federation regulations and the FIFA Regulations Governing the application of the Statutes – option right would be casted by Article 7.

I wasn't wholly satisfied by this as wasn't sure how FIFA could easily determine that a nationality had not been effective from birth when the relevant nationality legislation of a particular state stated it had been. I suggested then to Yann that, perhaps, if nationality is assumed automatically from/by birth, FIFA will deem it effective from birth and only article 5 will apply, but if its acquirement is not automatically "imposed" or conferred and requires an application process later in life, it will be deemed by FIFA to be effective from the date the application was accepted, even if the relevant legislation states it will apply retroactively as if from birth once acquired, and so article 7 will be further invoked. Yann concurred with this interpretation and felt this was exactly how FIFA distinguished.

DannyInvincible

20/02/2015, 11:03 PM

The stipulation of article 7(d)

During his research, Yann discovered that the FIFA administration has granted, with the approval of the Players’ Status Committee, exception to the five-year residency after the age of 18 stipulation in certain cases. FIFA adopts a case-by-case approach in this respect.

Concerning the Embolo and Zelalem cases, Yann said: 

In both cases, the FA intends to demonstrate that the player has been living in the US or Switzerland for more than five-year and that the strict application of Article 7 lit. d would prejudice their footballing career.

If you’re competent in French, there’s some more info in this article he sent me: 

https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/3yycztomio4b4tx0/images/1-7bd511bb24.jpg

Here is another piece: http://www.lematin.ch/slider%20lematin/dimanche/Embolo-ne-peut-pas-jouer-avec-la-Suisse/story/24162486

I’ve used my browser’s translator to get the following from the original French:

Yann Hafner, assistant PhD student at the University of Neuchâtel, said: "Breel Embolo does not meet the four criteria for a naturalized player to play for his adopted country, even if it has not yet played with another national team.

He was not born in Switzerland, his parents and grandparents either. Finally, the fourth point states that a naturalized player must have lived five years without interruption in his adopted country since the age of 18. No exceptions or remedy is provided for in the regulations. "

Rely on an exception

In other words, if FIFA enforces its laws, the Basel player can claim to be the Swiss jersey as his 23rd birthday, February 14, 2020! And again, on the sole condition that he resides in Switzerland and plays until that date. An impossible scenario given the interest already raise its performance abroad.

The side of the Swiss Football Association (ASF), Robert Breiter, legal officer, is aware of the problem: "Of course this is known to us. We actually talked about it, but no one has heard or wanted to hear. For our association, this is the first time such a case occurs. We will request a waiver and are hopeful of getting it. FIFA has the option to make exceptions. "

The faîtère instance confirms half words: "Indeed, there has already been exceptions in Article 7, but each case is treated for himself," says a spokesman, thus excluding the notion of jurisprudence.

The reason why the Swiss association is seeking an exemption, is that, and Yann is adamant about this, the criteria of article 7 theoretically and as a matter of principle apply to both minors and adults. I had him re-confirm this a few times just to make sure I was understanding him correctly as it is completely contrary to what we have assumed here.

I put forward our interpretation or presumption that naturalised under-18s qualify automatically (possibly under article 5.1 alone) without the invoking of article 7, as if their new nationality was not considered a newly-acquired one for the purpose of the regulations because it was acquired as a minor or as if the eligibility criteria simply didn't apply because they were minors, but he stated that this simply wasn’t correct as it breached the literal wording of the regulations. Minors who acquire a new nationality after birth also must ordinarily satisfy the article 7 criteria, irrespective of age. Of our interpretation, he stated:

Such interpretation breaches the literal wording of FIFA regulations and the purpose of the rule (see the comment of Ángel María Villar Llona in the minutes [below]). You have to be aware that United Arab Emirates Federation raised the point that naturalized players are de facto banned from international competition until the age of 23 (at best) and that the Congress acknowledged this fact and vetoed a proposal of the UAEF to remove this rule (153 vote against and only 42 in favor).

See section 12.2.2 on pages 22-23 of the Agenda for the 61st Congress in 2011 for the UAEF’s proposal to amend article 7 (then article 17): http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/01/42/93/05/fifakongressagendazurich2011_inhalt.pdf

The UAEF sought amendment for the very reason that article 7(d) does apply to minors. They wished to see the stipulation in article 7(d) reduced to three years from five and proposed a new criterion (e) which would have rendered a player who assumed a new nationality eligible if he had "lived continuously for at least five years before the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant association". 

See pages 30-31 of the Minutes of the 61st Congress for confirmation of the rejection of the proposal and the opinion of Ángel María Villar Llona who confirmed that the article was intended to apply to minors in limiting their transfer: http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/01/55/71/31/congressminutes2011_all.pdf

Yann understands that exemptions are most likely to be granted "when a player can prove he has lived in its country of naturalization for a period close to five-year, even before the age of 18". He confirmed there have been German and Australian cases (although he isn’t aware of the names of the specific players concerned), and in the latter case, he said "it is noteworthy to know that the Australian FA dropped its requested to amend the FIFA regulation just before the 2013 Congress", we presume because they were granted or promised exemptions for naturalised under-age players in return.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/image008_zps4f1a61e7.png
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/image009_zps58623a62.png

See section 13.2 on page 36 of the Minutes from the 63rd Congress in 2013 confirming Australia’s withdrawal of the proposal: http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/02/22/58/41/minutes2013kompakt_neutral.pdf

He made the following very insightful points as to why FIFA might prefer a continuation of the present situation whereby exemptions are granted with article 7(d) still intact:

In my opinion, the FIFA administration and the Player’s Status Committee are bound by the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, which provides no legal basis to grant such an exception. This being, I am also of the opinion that art. 7 lit. d FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, although it was passed by the Congress, is probably not proportionate and thus, could be deemed illegal under EU law [ https://www.academia.edu/291079/La_qualification_des_joueurs_en_%C3%A9quipe_repr%C 3%A9sentative_au_regard_de_la_r%C3%A9glementation_ de_la_FIFA_le_cas_de_la_Coupe_du_Monde_2010 at para 39 ff]

Perhaps the FIFA administration tries to prevent football players rushing to courts by granting these exceptions. If FIFA sought to apply their regulations strictly to a player who had not satisfied the five-year residency rule, Yann felt the player "could argue that FIFA regulations prevent him to seek employment in another country, thus tying him to the said country, and that it amounts to a restriction to his freedom of movement under EU law. The length of the ban could also be deemed not proportionate, especially when tied to the 18th birthday of the player". 

DannyInvincible

20/02/2015, 11:04 PM

In explaining how a strict application of article 7 may be seen as impinging upon a player’s rights under EU law, he elaborated in reference to Embolo:

Going back to the case of Embolo – if he has to wait until the age of 23 before leaving Switzerland in order to become eligible for the Swiss FA – this can only mean he cannot sign with a foreign club. Conversely, if he leaves Switzerland, he renounces being able to play for the Swiss side knowing that he has lived in this country for more than a decade. This is a restriction to his right of free movement under EU law.

So, from all of this, we can see that the Players' Status Committee is legally-bound by the regulations in theory, but the practical reality contravenes this. In effect, when the Players’ Status Committee grants an exemption, it is acting extra-legally or outside of the regulations because there is no express provision for such authority or such a role. For this reason, Yann favours the option of incorporating some new text into the regulations in order to expressly allow for the Players’ Status Committee to decide on border-line cases and grant exemptions with objective and identifiable criteria. He stated:

In my opinion, the FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee is bound by the Regulations and has to-date no authority to grant exceptions. Thus, the Congress should include this possibility in the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes so the FIFA practice is legally sound. In any event, a Court (the Court of Arbitration for Sport for instance) can always decide on a case-by-case basis that the Regulation should not be applied because it infringes the personality rights of a player.

I wondered: "If FIFA are indeed concerned about the legality of Article 7(d), as you suspect, why haven’t they replaced/amended it? Do they fear a potential opening up 'free-for-all' and instead prefer to rely on the ignorance of players/associations as to their possible legal rights and an unwillingness to bring FIFA to court in favour of accepting an exemption from the Players’ Status Committee?"

Yann responded to this as follows:

i) FIFA administration has no power to amend the rule. It lies with the Congress which fear "free-for-all" and does not want to open the floodgate. ii) I do not condemn FIFA practice per se by saying it has no legal basis – the administration uses a pragmatic approach which is in the interest of the players. This is good. However, I am favoring an approach where a Court would have the authority to decide on such exceptions according to objective and identifiable criteria. In addition, the Court case-law must also be published.

In summary he could not see, on the face of it, how Muntari and Boudiaf are eligible to play for Qatar, so suspects they both might have benefited from exemptions of which we are not aware granted by the Players’ Status Committee. Unfortunately, the Committee do not publish their decisions so we have no way of knowing for certain when an exemption might have been granted nor to whom, unless someone involved decides to reveal information for whatever reason. The Committee can grant exemptions to both minors and adults if the circumstances are considered pressing enough.

I posed a scenario with some follow-up questions for further illumination:

Me: Qatar are playing a competitive game against Team X and win the game. Team X notices that two of Qatar's players who've played in the game are naturalised Qatari citizens with no birth or familial links to Qatar, but neither have resided in Qatar for five years after the age of 18 either. In fact, they've only been residing in Qatar for two and four years respectively after the age of 18. Team X suspects that neither fulfill the ordinary eligibility criteria outlined in article 7; indeed, neither of the players do fulfill any of the criteria upon Team X's investigation. Team X raises the issue with FIFA and asks FIFA to check the situation out to ensure everything is in order and the regulations are being adhered to. Team X is seeking some sort penalty for Qatar for possibly having fielded ineligible players. However, (let's accept the following for the sake of argument) the reason these players are playing for Qatar in the first place is because the Players' Status Committee has granted these two players exemptions from the ordinary application of the regulations due to their particular circumstances. Therefore, they are what you might call "extra-legally eligible" by virtue of this exemption. 

What would FIFA say to Team X in response to the complaint? Would FIFA acknowledge to Team X that the eligibility of these players doesn't strictly adhere to the governing regulations but that the players had received exemptions from the Players' Status Committee, so, therefore, everything is, in fact, in order, as far as they're concerned, even though there is no express legal basis for all of this? 

Yann: This is an educated guess, but I think it is safe to assume that FIFA would say that these players have been cleared by the Player’s Status Committee. 

Me: If Team X was not satisfied with this, could they potentially bring the case to the CAS? 

Yann: In my opinion, Team X has the right to appeal the decision. 

Me: Would Team X have a case, do you think, or would the CAS be likely to accept the extra-legal exemption as permissible even though FIFA's regulations do not explicitly provide room for such exemptions? 

Yann: Betting on the outcome of such as case is like playing the Russian roulette. Both side have strong arguments. Team X has the wording of the regulations on its side. FIFA could advocate that article 7 was not drafted to cast the case of player Y & Z since they has been living for instance for 10 years in the country but have only been naturalized recently. As for Muntari and Boudiaf, it is really difficult to say. 

Me: Could the CAS rule the two Qatari players ineligible and advise FIFA to expressly make way for exemptions in the Regulations according to objective and identifiable criteria, as you say? 

Yann: Sure – but CAS would have to answer the following questions: i) what of the eligibility of these players in the future and ii) what of the results of the game? CAS recommended the IIHF (International Ice hockey Federation) to amend its eligibility rules following a ruling from an Austrian court (although CAS ruled in favour of the IIHF in that specific case). Another CAS panel recommended the IOC to change the Olympic Charter following a dispute at the Olympic Games, and the IOC did so.

DannyInvincible

20/02/2015, 11:05 PM

Irwin had posed a scenario in the Noe Baba thread, which I also sent Yann’s way in more-or-less the same form just for further clarification. Hope you don’t mind Irwin, but here’s what I posed and Yann’s response:

Me: Parent(s) move to Ireland from country X and are naturalised. Their child remains in country X until they are naturalised and then joins parents in Ireland aged 15. Parent(s) then petition for child to be granted Irish citizenship through naturalisation. This is approved. Would this ordinarily render the child eligible to play for the Republic of Ireland in FIFA competition at, say, under-17 level? He has never represented country X, by the way. Or would the Football Association of Ireland have to apply to the Players’ Status Committee for a special exemption? What might the case be if the player simply arrived in Ireland alone aged 15 (without his parents) and was, for the sake of argument, granted Irish citizenship immediately? Would he have to receive an exemption to represent the Republic of Ireland? 

Yann: I think the player would have to request an exemption in both cases. To the best of my knowledge, exemptions were granted only when the player arrived at a very young age in its country of naturalisation.

Article 8 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (change of association)

This may surprise you, geysir, but he also suggested there is a nexus between article 8.2 and article 7 and that any player to whom article 8.2 applies in relation to lost nationality would ordinarily have to satisfy one of the criteria in article 7 to play for a new country, having acquired a new nationality, except in the case the-said new nationality has been imposed upon him. This was his opinion, however, and he admitted that his opinion is not shared by some members of the FIFA administration. On article 8.2, he stated (and indeed highlighted the case of Stanković, as you had above, geysir):

The prior wording of this stipulation referred to international law and concerned mostly cases where a country became independent or when a territory was given by a State to another. Now, its wording only refers to the change of nationality without the consent of the player. 

This provision is used when a State such as ex-Yougoslavia breaks up into a series of successor States (Croatia, Slovenia, etc.). The case of Dejan Stankovic is most interesting. This player captained indeed three different national teams in three different World cups.

…

In my opinion, a player changing its eligibility according to article 8.2 must meet the stipulations of article 7 (I know that some members of the FIFA administration do not share the same view). Ruling otherwise, would leave the door open to possible abuse (article 8.2 is a safety mechanism – its application should be construed narrowly).

Charlie Darwin

20/02/2015, 11:22 PM

I don't have the time to fully digest that right now, Danny, but thank you for doing the research and bringing it to us.

DannyInvincible

20/02/2015, 11:44 PM

More than happy to do so. Sure all this eligibility talk makes me weak at the knees! :o

geysir

21/02/2015, 12:05 AM

Irwin3

21/02/2015, 4:07 AM

Nice one Danny. It's good to get the opinions of someone with some educational/professional interest in this area. If I understand correctly then not too much has changed from our group understanding of the minor situation in practice, although there probably aren't any automatic rights involved. My phrase 'statute black hole' certainly fits with his talk of exemptions being granted which may indeed technically be 'illegal' contravening the statutes as written. I think myself and others did speculate that 5 years residence before 18 may well be taken into account, even if this isn't written in the statutes to avert fears of out-and-out child trafficking. As long as the spirit of the true statutes is upheld when granting these exemptions, I don't think anyone would have a problem.

Still we are left with the case of a Qatari player potentially been given an exemption after moving to the country post-18 and living there for 2 years. This is absolutely bonkers if true and makes a mockery of the statutes. The statutes being rewritten after the last uproar may simply be a case of the emperor's new clothes and until there is some serious light shone on the situation at present, they may not be worth the paper they are written on.

DannyInvincible

21/02/2015, 10:49 AM

Good work Danny but opinions that Yann has about the statutes differ from what FIFA do in practice. IMO, Yann is not putting value on why the eligibility statutes are there in the first place but is overly focussing on the wording of the statute to define its raison d'etre and bases his opinions about the statute based on the wording of the statute and not on Fifa practice and the evolution of the statutes and this is glaringly so in the the example of new republics being born out of dying entities.
We here have already noted some lack of clarity but what we depend upon is how FIFA practice, their practice defines the interpretation of the statute.

I say FIFA will not oppose the international eligibility to a minor or child when that player has moved to the new country as part of his/her family and not for football motivated decision. Fifa have a clear distinction in the Transfer of players (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/27/64/30/regulationsstatusandtransfer2010%5fe.pdf) on this
Article 19 .2 The following three exceptions to this rule apply:a) The player’s parents move to the country in which the new club is
located for reasons not linked to football.
And that has also been FIFA practice in relation to international eligibility, regardless if the player was a child or a minor and there are plenty of examples around europe to support that since 2008, in France and Switzerland.

Yann call this an exception by Fifa, IMO this is not an exception, but I say it's just Fifa reserving the right to revue each case and decide on its merits, and what constitutes a positive merit is that the family have move for reasons other than football, a regular immigration. A young player like Noe Baba does not get an exception so that he can be eligible for Ireland, he just satisfies the statutes as they are meant to be interpreted.

Yann's position on article 7 is based upon clarification of the intended purpose of the rule as outlined by Ángel María Villar Llona at the 61st Congress. It was expressly stated that the intent of the rule was to limit the transfer of minors. The Australian and UAE associations proposed that article 7 be amended on separate occasions so that the post-18 stipulation be removed. Although one proposal was withdrawn and the other was rejected by a vote, by their very fact, the proposals further demonstrate how this rule was to ordinarily function. If the UAE had been interpreting the rule incorrectly, FIFA would have made that clear to them to save it from having to go to a vote.

Perhaps the Players' Status Committee judge cases and will decide in favour if the conditions you express are met (no matter how long the minor might have been resident in his new country), but the obvious problem is that we don't really know for sure. We're simply speculating as there is no explicit rule to cover this situation, nor to provide for the granting of exemptions even. As Yann says, it would be much more preferable to have a transparent process with uniform, universal, objective and identifiable criteria as well as published case-law, so at least then we know where everyone stands. Otherwise, we're left scratching our heads over cases like Muntari and Boudiaf, whilst the more cynical amongst us are left fearing there might have been something dodgy going on behind the scenes! :p

DannyInvincible

21/02/2015, 9:18 PM

As was stated and to the best of Yann's knowledge, "exemptions were granted only when the player arrived at a very young age in its country of naturalisation". Assuming he is correct, and I don't doubt that he is considering he studies this matter in depth, it would seem to suggest that not all cases where a minor "has moved to the new country as part of his/her family and not for football motivated decision" will be considered worthy of exemption. If Baba had been naturalised before the age of 18 after coming to Ireland at the age of, say, 15 or 16, rather than much earlier in his life, the feeling is that he might not have been deemed to merit an exemption. Or it would at least seem that the likelihood of an exemption being granted would be less.

geysir

22/02/2015, 4:16 PM

Yann's position on article 7 is based upon clarification of the intended purpose of the rule as outlined by Ángel María Villar Llona at the 61st Congress. It was expressly stated that the intent of the rule was to limit the transfer of minors. The Australian and UAE associations proposed that article 7 be amended on separate occasions so that the post-18 stipulation be removed. Although one proposal was withdrawn and the other was rejected by a vote, by their very fact, the proposals further demonstrate how this rule was to ordinarily function. If the UAE had been interpreting the rule incorrectly, FIFA would have made that clear to them to save it from having to go to a vote.

Perhaps the Players' Status Committee judge cases and will decide in favour if the conditions you express are met (no matter how long the minor might have been resident in his new country), but the obvious problem is that we don't really know for sure. We're simply speculating as there is no explicit rule to cover this situation, nor to provide for the granting of exemptions even. As Yann says, it would be much more preferable to have a transparent process with uniform, universal, objective and identifiable criteria as well as published case-law, so at least then we know where everyone stands. Otherwise, we're left scratching our heads over cases like Muntari and Boudiaf, whilst the more cynical amongst us are left fearing there might have been something dodgy going on behind the scenes! :p
I was referring specifically to 2 items. The first was the claim that an exception has to be made to the rule to allow children of migrants to play for their new country. I say it's Fifa practice to allow children of migrants to play from their new country once their migration has been certified kosher.
If it isn't spelled out exactly in the statutes then it will be, should it become an issue. It doesn't need fixing until loopholes are found and exploited :)
That practice is already written into other statutes to do with transfer of minors to clubs.
The minutes for the 61st Congress do not contradict this, it is stated there that Fifa want to limit the transfer of minors. If the purpose is to limit the transfer of minors, then there is some process, some conditions, some criteria to satisfy and it just so happens that those criteria are written elsewhere. I say you should examine FIFA practice to find out what Fifa do and what Fifa do in reality defines their ideology on this matter. If a new wording has to come about it will just reflect their ideological established position.

The rejection by the Fifa congress of the changing of the statute as proposed by the UAE, is fully in compliance with my opinion, Fifa could not allow that change because it would open the door wide for what they regard as the exploitation of minors.

The second issue would the statement by Yann
"In my opinion, a player changing its eligibility according to article 8.2 must meet the stipulations of article 7"
There is no evidence for that and quite frankly I'd regard it as a "makey up" opinion.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest a player in that situation would have to satisfy conditions in article 7.
The player's application would be reviewed on its merits, how the citizenship was lost and his new nationality.
But to starkly state a player "must meet conditions of article 7" is very dubious.
That is why I said or alluded to, that he is not basing his opinions on Fifa practice but on his opinions, unsupported opinions, at least in this example:)

Charlie Darwin

23/02/2015, 1:43 AM

geysir has seen his status as the high authority on FIFA eligibility matters challenged by a young upstart with fancy dan qualifications and he's responding well.

DannyInvincible

23/02/2015, 2:06 AM

I was referring specifically to 2 items. The first was the claim that an exception has to be made to the rule to allow children of migrants to play for their new country. I say it's Fifa practice to allow children of migrants to play from their new country once their migration has been certified kosher.

No matter what their age was when they arrived in their new country? Can you say with certainty that it is" Fifa practice to allow children of migrants [of all ages?] to play from their new country once their migration has been certified kosher"? To the best of Yann's knowledge, "exemptions were granted only when the player arrived at a very young age in its country of naturalisation". Is there evidence to suggest otherwise?

If it isn't spelled out exactly in the statutes then it will be, should it become an issue. It doesn't need fixing until loopholes are found and exploited :)

If you don't perceive there to be an issue of legal ambiguity presently, what do you think might result in it becoming an issue?

That practice is already written into other statutes to do with transfer of minors to clubs.
The minutes for the 61st Congress do not contradict this, it is stated there that Fifa want to limit the transfer of minors. If the purpose is to limit the transfer of minors, then there is some process, some conditions, some criteria to satisfy and it just so happens that those criteria are written elsewhere. I say you should examine FIFA practice to find out what Fifa do and what Fifa do in reality defines their ideology on this matter. If a new wording has to come about it will just reflect their ideological established position.

Where are they written elsewhere exactly? Article 19 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which you cited in a previous post, relates to and grants exceptions for minors who wish to cross an international boundary to sign for a new club. It does not relate to the switching of an international association; that is a legally separate matter. I'm not necessarily saying that the Players' Status Committee wouldn't look favourably upon naturalised minors who wish to switch association and happen to meet those criteria of this separate article because I simply don't know - indeed, your argument is compelling and would make sense - but to assert that this article or its excepting criteria cover this latter situation is surely no more than an assumption?

The rejection by the Fifa congress of the changing of the statute as proposed by the UAE, is fully in compliance with my opinion, Fifa could not allow that change because it would open the door wide for what they regard as the exploitation of minors.

It was rejected to safeguard the integrity of national associations and to limit the transfer of minors, but I'm not sure that it does necessarily say anything as to the correctness or incorrectness of your opinion.

The second issue would the statement by Yann
"In my opinion, a player changing its eligibility according to article 8.2 must meet the stipulations of article 7"
There is no evidence for that and quite frankly I'd regard it as a "makey up" opinion.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest a player in that situation would have to satisfy conditions in article 7.
The player's application would be reviewed on its merits, how the citizenship was lost and his new nationality.
But to starkly state a player "must meet conditions of article 7" is very dubious.
That is why I said or alluded to, that he is not basing his opinions on Fifa practice but on his opinions, unsupported opinions, at least in this example:)

Fair point, although Yann did acknowledge that some members of the FIFA administration do not share his view, which is more or less to say that his opinion is only that and is open to correction.

DannyInvincible

23/02/2015, 1:01 PM

I felt it might be helpful to get a direct response from Yann to your thoughts, geysir. I emailed him the content of both your previous two posts last night and, welcoming your challenge, here is what he said verbatim in response to post #6742 (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805284&viewfull=1#post1805284):

Transfer of players and transfer of allegiance are two separate concepts governed by different two set of rules. If the first includes a provision on the status of minor, the second does not – and on purpose! (see: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/81/10/29/circularno.1147-eligibilitytoplayforrepresentativeteams_55197.pdf) Thus, you simply cannot use the exception provided by article 19.2 in relation with athlete eligibility in national to justify separate treatment for minor in this context. This is clearly an error in law.

I do not see the difference between “FIFA reserving the right to revue each case and decide on its merits” and the actual exception procedure set up by FIFA. I am merely stating that there is currently no express legal basis to grant such an exemption and that FIFA administration and the Player’s Status Committee are bound by the regulations decided by the Congress. Last, it is for a Court – and only a Court – to depart from the FIFA regulations if they infringe the personality right of a player.

And in response to post #6746 (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805468&viewfull=1#post1805468):

The structure and the purpose of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes imply that Articles 5 and 7 must be satisfied at all time. They are to be considered stipulations of general, respectively of specific nature.

Article 8.1 is intended to be the “normal” process to switch allegiance. Prior to 2003, change in eligibility was not possible as a matter of principle: the only exception being in the case of territorial mutation. Article 8.2 succeeded this concept (although with a different wording) and thus, has always been regarded and understood as a safety clause. For your information, this kind of clause is interpreted narrowly under Swiss law.

Assuming naturalized players do not have to meet the stipulations of article 7, they would be immediately eligible after losing their previous citizenship (we are also assuming that their country of origin does not recognize dual nationality). If Articles 8.2 and 7 are not applied together, there is nothing preventing a country from “poaching” players from countries not recognizing dual nationality knowing that these players will be immediately eligible for its national side. This simply defies the purpose of Article 7.