Eligibility Rules, Okay

[DannyInvincible]

In his summary, Feighan (at 01:23:50 of the fourth recording below) said he hoped that some protocol/"fair solution" could be agreed between the FAI and IFA on the eligibility matter; clearly, he has not taken note of the fact that to deny against their wishes certain Irish nationals the right to be chosen by Ireland would be to treat such players uniquely unfairly and distinctly from all other international footballers around the world. No matter how well-intentioned he claims his motives might be, it would be to deny them their rights under the FIFA regulations.

The idea of a single all-island team rose its head (after a question by the SDLP's Seán Rogers at 33:07 in the fourth recording below) and I thought Hugo MacNeill made a very profound and sensitive point (at 01:19:01) when he said that proposals that might seem superficially compelling or attractive to some may be deeply provocative to others from a different walk of life. Obviously, he was referring to any proposal that might compel an unwilling IFA to join up with the FAI and the possible lack of understanding of the Ulster unionist identity and their traditions amongst non-unionists that would be involved in the viewing of such a proposal as attractive (possibly more so out of ignorance than anything else), but the same principle applies to the eligibility matter. It might sound superficially compelling to the likes of Feighan (who admitted at 01:23:04 to his ignorance of the social reality in the north when growing up 40 miles from the border and whilst supporting NI on television at the 1982 World Cup) to limit those born in the north to play for the IFA team only in the interests of togetherness or whatever, but it is an opinion that is profoundly provocative to the likes of myself and a whole community of Irish nationals from the north who don't necessarily have any animosity towards the IFA or whatever; they just want to support their national football team. It's not that they have something in particular against the IFA; it's simply that the IFA is as of much cultural relevance to them as, say, the FA, SFA or FAW would be.

I only realised the thing was being broadcast live shortly before it started but managed to get some of the speeches and the questions/responses recorded. The sound-quality isn't terrific, but the speech is at least clear and comprehensible, bar some interfering noise at the very beginning of a few of the recordings.

I missed the initial few seconds, but here is the opening contribution of Claire Adams of the IFA: https://soundcloud.com/dannyinvincible/bipa-claire-adams-ifa

And the opening contribution of Miriam Malone of the FAI: https://soundcloud.com/dannyinvincible/bipa-miriam-malone-fai

Trevor Ringland's opening contribution: https://soundcloud.com/dannyinvincible/bipa-trevor-ringland

A general recording featuring questions, panelist responses and a summation by Frank Feighan: https://soundcloud.com/dannyinvincible/bipa-general-questions

It is in the general recording that the eligibility matter is primarily dealt with after a question was posed on "the poaching of the young Northern Irish players/IFA's best players" by a poorly-informed Sammy Douglas of the DUP (from 05:06 of the fourth recording). He repeatedly referred to the FAI as "the FIA" and then Aiden McGeady as "Aideen McGinley" before attempting to correct himself with "Aiden McGready"!

Claire Adams of the IFA (from 14:02 in the fourth recording) acknowledged it is a matter of player choice. The IFA's official or public position would appear to be one of acceptance of the rules and of the right of Irish nationals to channel their interest elsewhere if they so wish. She said it is up to the IFA to show eligible players what they have to offer, continue to foster a welcoming spirit for all and hope that that will be enough to maintain the interest of those who are happy to play for the IFA.

Miriam Malone of the FAI (from 19:22 in the fourth recording) also made very clear that it was the idea of respecting individual player choice that was fundamental to this matter. She understood there can be an impact in terms of the IFA possibly losing the option of selecting once-eligible quality players born in the north because they've declared elsewhere, but it boils down to respecting player choice ultimately.

Ryan Feeney of the GAA gave his opinion on it (from 09:48 of the fourth recording) and said it's important to broaden the debate beyond the "poaching" framework. He did say that he had been speaking with Trevor Ringland earlier in the day though and they agreed that "there are eligibility rules in place and, if they were applied, everyone would be happy". I'm not sure whether the insinuation was that the rules governing eligibility are not being applied at present, but, just in case, I have clarified the matter for him via Twitter. Of course, the universal rules are being applied very much correctly, but, unfortunately, and as we well know, that is not enough to keep everyone happy.

Unfortunately, Trevor Ringland (from 23:05 in the fourth recording) also stated that the rules aren't being applied correctly. I've since tweeted him also to clarify this for him. He seemed not to perceive the obvious contradiction in his stance where he was seemingly advocating the limiting of player choice where Irish nationals born in the north were concerned but later (from 38:15) opposed the notion of a single all-island team as it would be to trample upon the NI/unionist identity. He said "Northern Ireland exists" and he said they have their own identity; that's all well and good, and good for them, but the Irish nationalist minority also exists and that community also have their own distinct identity. You can't have your cake and eat it; tolerate others as you too wish to be tolerated and all that. Nationalists can channel their national identity through the FAI, which is fine, and unionists can channel their identity through the IFA, which is also fine. I sent him a few tweets which included the following:


As you said, NI exists and you have your own identity. To deprive you of your football team by compelling you into a single all-island team is something you would not appreciate. Indeed, I would object to that. Likewise, it is important to recognise identity of Irish nationals from NI & their right to choice. The reality is they channel their identity through FAI team. Compelling them to play for IFA would be to deny them right and would be a denial of their national identity. They choose because they are Irish nationals; not out of any animus towards #IFA necessarily. For many in NI, the IFA team is simply culturally irrelevant. That's just the reality and nothing inherently wrong with that. Important to recognise & tolerate. National identity transcends political boundaries. Just to clarify, I would object to compelling NI/IFA and your players/fans into a single all-island team against your wishes. Your objection to it is entirely reasonable, as is the wish of Irish nationals to play for FAI team. Just to provide analogy.

[Gather round]

Thanks for spending presumably many hours listening to and then writing that DI :D

Re: Feighan. That's potentially the nub, isn't it? Either we go on as now, with many NI fans irritated and stirred up by cynical Unionist politicians, and resulting bad feeling which which will irritate IR fans in turn. Or we consider some compromise, albeit by its nature messy, temporary and ad hoc. I've suggested here many times that the FAI could argue not to pick any players who've already represented NI adult teams (ie U-19 and older). It isn't an inalienable human right to be chosen for a football team.

Hugo MacNeill is right, although it's a bit depressing that you describe his contribution as profound. He's just stating the obvious- NI fans want there to be a NI team pretty much by definition. Some of the IR fans disagreeing are ignorant as you suggest (daydreaming, I'd prefer). Others, to repeat as ever are either trolls on a wind-up or the sort of numbheads who think merging two bad football teams will produce one good one almost inevitably.

The IFA and FAI spokeswomen make fair points.

[DannyInvincible]

I've suggested here many times that the FAI could argue not to pick any players who've already represented NI adult teams (ie U-19 and older). It isn't an inalienable human right to be chosen for a football team.

I'm not necessarily condemning the sentiment of your proposal, but, say, if a former NI under-21 international lodged his request to switch to the FAI with the Players' Status Committee, they'll switch him over (the IFA won't have any authority to stop this over the Players' Status Committee), and then for the FAI to tell him that he's barred from selection by way of an internal/informal agreement with the IFA so they will not be selecting him, I'm pretty sure he'd have a case there against the FAI (and possibly the IFA) for attempted infringement of his personality rights. He'll also have effectively barred himself from international football against his will due to a complete breach of FIFA's regulations by the associations concerned, unless FIFA were to step in to enforce his right and demand the FAI/IFA drop this "agreement", which I'm sure they would do if they heard wind of such an attempt to limit the transfer of a player.

You'd also have to explain why a certain category of Irish nationals should be treated uniquely and distinctly from every other dual/multiple nationality footballer around the world.


Hugo MacNeill is right, although it's a bit depressing that you describe his contribution as profound. He's just stating the obvious- NI fans want there to be a NI team pretty much by definition.

Possibly I was overly generous, but it stood out and I thought it worth noting because, no matter how obvious it seems, many people just can't seem to (or don't want to) see it and empathise with others whose circumstances would be affected adversely in a very direct manner by something that might seem positive to them. If we think certain NI fans saying things like "if you're born in Norn Iron then you're Norn Irish and you should play for Norn Iron" sounds ignorant and provocative, then we have to appreciate that calls for a single all-island team sound pretty stupid and provocative to NI fans in return without some sort of political agreement or solution, depending on your perspective, over the big constitutional question first.


The IFA and FAI spokeswomen make fair points.

The IFA have definitely changed their tack and seem to be taking the progressive, proactive and responsible approach to this now instead of whining and deflecting blame onto others. It's bound to be reaping rewards with more players from Catholic backgrounds seemingly content to stick with them, as Claire Adams seems to indicate. I'll even admit it has engendered a newfound (degree of) respect within me for them.

[Gather round]

I'm not necessarily condemning the sentiment of your proposal, but, say, if a former NI under-21 international lodged his request to switch to the FAI with the Players' Status Committee, they'll switch him over (the IFA won't have any authority to stop this over the Players' Status Committee), and then for the FAI to tell him that he's barred from selection by way of an internal/informal agreement with the IFA so they will not be selecting him, I'm pretty sure he'd have a case there against the FAI (and possibly the IFA) for attempted infringement of his personality rights. He'll also have effectively barred himself from international football against his will due to a complete breach of FIFA's regulations by the associations concerned, unless FIFA were to step in to enforce his right and demand the FAI/IFA drop this "agreement", which I'm sure they would do if they heard wind of such an attempt to limit the transfer of a player.

You'd also have to explain why a certain category of Irish nationals should be treated uniquely and distinctly from every other dual/multiple nationality footballer around the world

I accept the problem (and indeed anticipated it by referring the messiness of any ad hoc deal). Clearly I'd prefer the hypothetical situations to involve the young prodigy turning down either the early NI youth cap or later full IR approach ;)

Maybe FIFA would step in as you suggest, always assuming there was nothing more important on the agenda. Like filling in their World Cup wallchart -cum-Advent Calendar, say.

Infringement of personality rights isn't a legal principle I know much about, so for the moment I'll stick to the Law ignoring trivia if ye don't mind...

[DannyInvincible]

I asked Yann about a few other matters of interest...

He agrees with the interpretation that FIFA most likely consider having a grandparent born north of the border to be sufficient enough to render a player eligible for Ireland under the condition of article 7(c), as such an approach would be consistent with the fact that people born in the north can claim Irish nationality by law.

He is also of the opinion that it is probably the first competitive international appearance after a switch that ties a player to his new association and not the request to switch itself. Interestingly, though, he claims that our "test case", Bobby Zamora, never requested a change of association (even though media articles quite clearly state he had a request approved and was all ready to play for Trinidad & Tobago after having played for England competitively at under-age level) as he does not feature on a FIFA database to which Yann has access.

He will try and seek official clarification on these matters when he next meets the head of the PSC in April and is also going to try and find out from his contacts if there are others within the FIFA administration who might agree with his opinion on the suggested nexus between articles 8.2 and 7.

[TrapAPony]

Interestingly, though, he claims that our "test case", Bobby Zamora, never requested a change of association (even though media articles quite clearly state he had a request approved and was all ready to play for Trinidad & Tobago after having played for England competitively at under-age level) as he does not feature on a FIFA database to which Yann has access.

Should have asked him if any English or American lads have recently requested to play for us. Who is on their FIFA database?

[DannyInvincible]

I'm not aware of any names and can't go into further detail, sorry.

[DannyInvincible]

Here are some general figures on switches that Yann has presented/published as part of a talk ("Blurred nationalities: who gets to play for whom at the 2014 FIFA World Cup?" A critical analysis of the current FIFA Regulations on national team representation): http://www.academia.edu/7264909/_Blurred_nationalities_who_gets_to_play_for_whom_a t_the_2014_FIFA_World_Cup_A_critical_analysis_of_t he_current_FIFA_Regulations_on_national_team_repre sentation

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/FIFASwitches3_zpslzbbkolw.png

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/FIFASwitches2_zpswdvpmwle.png

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/FIFASwitches_zps0hpzrn2g.png

The images are from pages 35-37 of his presentation and are accurate up until June 2014.

[Olé Olé]

Some great graphs there to reaffirm some of the trends that we would have noted previously. For example, African-born players switching association is only 2% but players switching to African associations is 38% of switches- see the Algerian football team at the 2014 World Cup. A lot of inter-European switches also. I'd wager a high amount relating to players switching to or from Germany, England and Switzerland. Those would be some interesting graphs too!

[DannyInvincible]

Yann looked at the Netherlands specifically in his presentation as an example of an association that has had a significant number of players switch to other associations. See page 38.


Article 8 (Change of Association)

The Netherlands : “lost” 16 players

8 : Morocco

2 : Turkey

1 : Ghana

1: Cape Verde Islands

1 : Cameroon

1 : Bosnia and Herzegovina

1 : Iraq

1 : Iran

[DannyInvincible]

Infringement of personality rights isn't a legal principle I know much about, so for the moment I'll stick to the Law ignoring trivia if ye don't mind...

I'm not an expert on personality rights myself either, but such rights are taken seriously and are not mere matters of trivia.

David Casserly (solicitor acting on behalf of the FAI) submitted to CAS during the Kearns case that to deny Daniel Kearns his entitlement to declare for the FAI would constitute an infringement of his personality rights within the meaning of Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code (see paragraph 19: http://web.archive.org/web/20110721053357/http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4385/5048/0/Award%202071.pdf). Yann Hafner, with whom I've been in touch lately on eligibility matters, also mentioned (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805275&viewfull=1#post1805275) how CAS can potentially defend and enforce a player's personality rights in instances where it is felt that the restrictive application of FIFA's regulations on eligibility (especially the article 7 criteria) might be overbearing or unwarranted.

[Charlie Darwin]

Yann looked at the Netherlands specifically in his presentation as an example of an association that has had a significant number of players switch to other associations. See page 38.
No Barry Maguire :eek:

[Gather round]

I'm not an expert on personality rights myself either, but such rights are taken seriously and are not mere matters of trivia

To clarify, I'm suggesting that any case by a footballer against a FA for not selecting him would likely be trivial, not the principle of personality rights.

Although the latter make me think of Il Trap stumbling through a press conference in pidgin English and German :rolleyes:

[DannyInvincible]

To clarify, I'm suggesting that any case by a footballer against a FA for not selecting him would likely be trivial, not the principle of personality rights.

Surely not if there was substance to his case in the form of a functioning restrictive agreement in place directly affecting his right to request a switch of association. Even if FIFA were to over-see and approve something restrictive like that that would discriminate against one very specific category of international footballer, it wouldn't exempt them from the over-rule of the CAS operating under the law of the land. Anyway, I suppose it's all a very academic or hypothetical discussion. There won't be any internal agreement.


Although the latter make me think of Il Trap stumbling through a press conference in pidgin English and German :rolleyes:

Short-hand in a second language? Coherency and illumination are fundamental to good communication. Those boxes were ticked for me. :)

[osarusan]

Surely not if there was substance to his case in the form of a functioning restrictive agreement in place directly affecting his right to request a switch of association. Even if FIFA were to over-see and approve something restrictive like that that would discriminate against one very specific category of international footballer, it wouldn't exempt them from the over-rule of the CAS operating under the law of the land. Anyway, I suppose it's all a very academic or hypothetical discussion. There won't be any internal agreement.


I don't think the agreement would affect his right to request a switch (or have that request granted), rather, the agreement (assuming it was public knowledge) would make the request pointless as he'd know he wouldn't be selected anyway.

Don't the Home Nations have a gentleman's agreement that limits their selections in some way - that is to say that although a player would be eligible under FIFA's criteria, they had their own policy? I remember it being mentioned around the time Nacho Novo was mooted as a possible Scotland international.

And didn't Northern Ireland at one point limit their selctions to players who had one NI-born parent? Pretty sure that's how Alan Kernaghan ended up with us.

[DannyInvincible]

Sorry, yes, the agreement would prevent him from being able to effect a switch. It is possible the associations could intend to keep it private, if they were both willing. How practical this might be, though, I'm not really sure. Would both associations then happily sign players over and give the impression of accommodating the Players' Status Committee before simply ignoring those players concerned? It would be rather deceptive behaviour and I'm sure there'd be suspicion then if quality players were then being completely ignored. I don't know how realistic keeping such an agreement private would be.

The British associations are granted express permission within the wording of article 6 to either get rid of or replace littera (d) of that article. They've replaced the article requirement for two years continuous residence with a stipulation demanding that a player has been educated for five years on the territory of the association concerned.

I'll look into the nature of the internal rule that prevented Kernaghan from representing NI when I have some time later. Not sure if it was an IFA-only rule or whether it was commonly-agreed amongst the British associations and rubber-stamped by FIFA.

The only reason why I argue that an internal IFA-FAI rule on the eligibility matter would fall foul is because CAS stated such an agreement would have infringed on the players' rights had it been in place before as the FIFA rules take primacy, whilst Casserly and Yann also speak of personality rights being breached, meaning that even if FIFA were to authorise it, players may still have a valid case.

[osarusan]

Sorry, yes, the agreement would prevent him from being able to effect a switch. It is possible the associations could intend to keep it private, if they were both willing. How practical this might be, though, I'm not really sure. Would both associations then happily sign players over and give the impression of accommodating the Players' Status Committee before simply ignoring those players concerned? It would be rather deceptive behaviour and I'm sure there'd be suspicion then if quality players were then being completely ignored. I don't know how realistic keeping such an agreement private would be.

There would be no point if it were private - it would defeat the purpose of such an agreement from NI's perspective in that the players would still no longer be able to play for them. It would need to be public, and therefore the players would not actually switch and remain eligible for NI.


The British associations are granted express permission within the wording of article 6 to either get rid of or replace littera (d) of that article. They've replaced the article requirement for two years continuous residence with a stipulation demanding that a player has been educated for five years on the territory of the association concerned.
Yes. I was pointing out that there is already one FIFA-approved agreement which restricts eligibility - is there a fundamental difference between the Home Nations one and the NI-ROI hypothetical agreement?

EDIT: Also, there is already a gentleman's agreement between NI and ROI regarding the FAI not making first contact with NI-born players - is this not something that would be infringing on a player's rights already?



I'll look into the nature of the internal rule that prevented Kernaghan from representing NI when I have some time later. Not sure if it was an IFA-only rule or whether it was commonly-agreed amongst the British associations and rubber-stamped by FIFA.

Are rules determined solely by any individual association allowed, or do they always have to be ratified by FIFA?

From the Belfast Telegraph:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/i-longed-to-play-for-northern-ireland-says-former-republic-star-kernaghan-28503648.html


Kernaghan lived in Bangor from the age of six but when it was discovered he had been born in Leeds to English parents — although his father’s parents were from Northern Ireland — the IFA declared him ineligible for the senior side.





The only reason why I argue that an internal IFA-FAI rule on the eligibility matter would fall foul is because CAS stated such an agreement would have infringed on the players' rights had it been in place before as the FIFA rules take primacy, whilst Casserly and Yann also speak of personality rights being breached, meaning that even if FIFA were to authorise it, players may still have a valid case.

FIFA rules taking primacy means that no team can impose any other criteria of their own?

Is there any reason why the Home Nations agreement doesn't fall foul of CAS?

[DannyInvincible]

There would be no point if it were private - it would defeat the purpose of such an agreement from NI's perspective in that the players would still no longer be able to play for them. It would need to be public, and therefore the players would not actually switch and remain eligible for NI.

Of course. That makes sense. I'd overlooked that rather obvious point. It would indeed defeat its purpose, as far as the IFA would be concerned, if they were to keep it private.


Yes. I was pointing out that there is already one FIFA-approved agreement which restricts eligibility - is there a fundamental difference between the Home Nations one and the NI-ROI hypothetical agreement?

Just to clarify, the requirement is for five years of education before the age of 18 in the territory of the relevant association, but the Home Nations agreement is expressly permitted by article 6, so FIFA have provisioned for it in advance. Any proposed amendment must also be approved by the Executive Committee before being considered effective.

This is the wording of article 6.2:


"Regardless of par. 1 above, Associations sharing a common nationality may make an agreement under which item (d) of par. 1 of this article is deleted completely or amended to specify a longer time limit. Such agreements shall be lodged with and approved by the Executive Committee."


EDIT: Also, there is already a gentleman's agreement between NI and ROI regarding the FAI not making first contact with NI-born players - is this not something that would be infringing on a player's rights already?

If that is something that is still "in force", I'm not sure, seeing as the IFA's taking of Kearns to CAS wasn't exactly in accordance with what was cordially agreed between Boyce and O'Byrne in 1999 (although I do know Sean McCaffrey refused to make contact with Shane Duffy until Duffy formally declared his intent to switch), but I don't see how this would infringe any player rights as the player would still have the right to request a switch and declare for the FAI, even if he had to first get in touch with the FAI to get the ball rolling. I don't see how there would be an obligation under the regulations, nor the law, for the FAI to first contact players who might wish to request a switch. But you're free to argue possible infringement if you can find a law that you think is being breached. :p

This is what was agreed:


The FAI acknowledge that this is a cross-community scheme and undertook to continue its policy of not approaching players born in Northern Ireland for the Republic of Ireland international teams. However, any player that opts to declare for the Republic of Ireland and notifies the FAI of this will be considered for selection.


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.


Are rules determined solely by any individual association allowed, or do they always have to be ratified by FIFA?

They wouldn't be formal rules in the sense they wouldn't be FIFA-ratified. I'm sure associations can have policies or internal "rules" if they wish, but if these fell foul of FIFA's rules, FIFA's would take primacy. I think the wording of article 6.2 does leave room for doubt here though, as if to suggest that proposed exceptions might need to be specifically provisioned for and also that internal agreements or policies might require official approval post-proposal, but would that be practical if the policy was simply kept private and enforceable by the association whilst kept private? Common sense would surely say, though, that FIFA wouldn't be too bothered about anything that wouldn't amount to a breach of their regulations or the law potentially.

Even if internal policies were permitted by FIFA's rules, but a player still felt they infringed upon his rights in some way, he might be able to initiate legal proceedings through CAS against the association concerned and FIFA. Obviously, the law by which CAS operates - Swiss law - will trump both FIFA regulations and internal association policies.


From the Belfast Telegraph:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/i-longed-to-play-for-northern-ireland-says-former-republic-star-kernaghan-28503648.html

Aye, it seems the IFA policy was that unless you or a parent were born in NI, they weren't interested. Whether this was unique to the IFA though or whether that was a standard Home Nations policy applied by all four and approved by FIFA, I simply don't know. Utilising the "granny rule" was something over which we were roundly mocked in England as well, so perhaps its "taboo" nature amongst the Home Nations was the source of a policy across all four. That's complete speculation on my part though.


FIFA rules taking primacy means that no team can impose any other criteria of their own?

Not necessarily. If there is a conflict, FIFA's rules will take precedence. So if an association was to impose internal criteria, those conditions would have to be within FIFA's rules and also within the law of the land. Whether there are certain conditions that would be within FIFA's rules or whether all internal conditions that you could imagine could possibly be imposed by an association would fall foul of FIFA's rules unless sanctioned by FIFA, I wouldn't be able to say. Maybe you can think of possible examples that would be legitimate? It's dependent on whether either FIFA or CAS would see the criteria as infringing upon certain rights protected by either the regulations or the law of the land.


Is there any reason why the Home Nations agreement doesn't fall foul of CAS?

I'm not sure. It would depend on what a player who feels his rights are being infringed upon might argue. If a court of law examined the criteria and felt they were disproportionate in limiting his free movement for labour purposes or breached personality rights or something along those lines, the court may declare them illegal if provided with a convincing enough argument. Presumably, FIFA are satisfied that their restrictive/discriminative effect would be deemed proportionate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_%28law%29#European_Union_law).

Whether or not the following difference would have implications for the legal interpretation of the separate articles, I'm not entirely sure, but Yann had previously informed me that "the general purpose of article 6 is not to assess the ties of a player to a country (in the sense of a State as is the purpose of article 7) but to provide only for a rule of conflict".

[osarusan]

If that is something that is still "in force", I'm not sure, seeing as the IFA's taking of Kearns to CAS wasn't exactly in accordance with what was cordially agreed between Boyce and O'Byrne in 1999 (although I do know Sean McCaffrey refused to make contact with Shane Duffy until Duffy formally declared his intent to switch), but I don't see how this would infringe any player rights as the player would still have the right to request a switch and declare for the FAI, even if he had to first get in touch with the FAI to get the ball rolling. I don't see how there would be an obligation under the regulations, nor the law, for the FAI to first contact players who might wish to request a switch. But you're free to argue possible infringement if you can find a law that you think is being breached. :p
.

I am actually arguing the opposite.

The players' right to request a switch and have that switch granted would not be affected - it would still be possible, so their rights would not be infringed in the way you suggest.

The hypothetical agreement would make such a switch pointless, but not impossible.

[DannyInvincible]

The hypothetical IFA-FAI agreement would mean a player who did not satisfy its stipulation wouldn't be able to effect or "realise" the switch though, wouldn't it? Therein might lie an infringement.

Some more on the IFA's rejection of Kernaghan, by the way: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/kernaghan-still-pushing-back-the-boundaries-1-677913


Kernaghan himself starred in the Under-15 Northern Irish schoolboys' team, and assumed when he went to Middlesbrough that the senior caps would follow. But Kernaghan was disturbed from such reverie by an Irish football Association official. He informed the player that he was ineligible due to the fact that neither he nor one of his parents had been born in Northern Ireland, a rule the IFA then insisted upon. "Until the question arose, I hadn't even thought about not being able to play for Northern Ireland," says Kernaghan. "My Dad contacted the secretary of the IFA and argued with him: 'Why is this, why can't this be changed?' From what I am led to believe the IFA were keen to keep the status quo."

Not sure if it sheds a huge deal of light on the nature of the "rule" though.

[osarusan]

The hypothetical IFA-FAI agreement would mean a player who did not satisfy its stipulation wouldn't be able to effect or "realise" the switch though, wouldn't it? Therein might lie an infringement.


In some cases a player who wants to switch will never realise the switch through never being capped. It's purely an issue of quality. There is no infringement there, I presume.

In this case there would be a policy of not selecting players, even if their quality was (subjectively) high enough that they might otherwise reasonably expect a call up. That would be an issue of policy.


Legally, would the latter be any different from a player who doesn't realise the switch through simply never getting capped by his new association because he's not good enough?

I can see where you're going...but I'm not sure about it.

[DannyInvincible]

Obviously, I'd prefer something a bit more reliable and concrete, but I came across a post on Scottish football forum which seems to claim that the Home Nations collectively rejected the "granny rule" until 1993: http://www.weareperth.co.uk/wapforum/index.php?/topic/5210-andy-jackson/?p=111017


The granny rule agreement between the home nations only came in in 1993.
Previously only parents would count.

Kernaghan first played for us in 1992, before the Home Nations' policy would have changed in 1993 (assuming this info is correct).


In some cases a player who wants to switch will never realise the switch through never being capped. It's purely an issue of quality. There is no infringement there, I presume.

I would agree.


In this case there would be a policy of not selecting players, even if their quality was (subjectively) high enough that they might otherwise reasonably expect a call up. That would be an issue of policy.


Legally, would the latter be any different from a player who doesn't realise the switch through simply never getting capped by his new association because he's not good enough?

I can see where you're going...but I'm not sure about it.

Hehe, I'm not sure about it either, to be honest. It's an interesting argument. I'm primarily basing my position on the words of a CAS judgment and two independent sports lawyers. I trust that they know what they're talking about. If a court of law tells us that a certain policy or agreement would infringe upon a particular right or set of rights that it protects, I have to assume that what the court is telling us is correct.

Paragraph 90 of the Kearns case (http://web.archive.org/web/20110721053357/http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4385/5048/0/Award%202071.pdf) reads as follows:


"In any event, the alleged tacit agreement may not be used to defeat the claim of Mr Kearns, who was of course not a party to any such agreement and who, in any event, is entitled to exercise his rights as provided under Article 15 and 18 of the 2009 Application Regulations."

The court also referred specifically to "the right to a change of association" at paragraph 83, whilst article 8.3 of FIFA's regulations explicitly refers to "the right to change Associations" as well. Why refer to it as a right or talk about its protection if there is no real substance to it or if there is no distinction to be recognised between its non-protection and simply not being selected on the basis of lack of quality alone (which we know is accepted)?

I do appreciate your point; the apparent effect would identical. The means may be different, but the ends are seemingly the same, so why would there be any legal distinction? There's no obligation upon an association to select any player, after all, so you'd naturally have to wonder how a player could claim he has some right to be selected. I think, however, the matter is, more accurately, about ensuring that a player's right to be available for selection is protected (so long as whatever other existing criteria adjudged to be reasonable are satisfied). The existence of a policy - an extra unwarranted or unreasonable condition - would restrict that, whereas (non-)selection based on quality alone is accepted as a reasonable means by which to discriminate.

I do admit it all sounds like a very academic and pedantic argument on the surface, but why would the various bodies and lawyers talk about rights if what they were saying didn't have any meaning or if there was no practical significance to the words they were using? They aren't talking about these rights simply for effect, surely?

[DannyInvincible]

Some more info on the Home Nations agreement in place until 1993 that rendered Kernaghan ineligible for the IFA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_eligibility_rules#Home_nations_agreement

It must have been introduced at some point prior to 1990, if the bit below about the Herald is correct.


In 1990, Nigel Spackman wanted to be called up by Scotland during his time at Rangers F.C. through his Scottish grandfather. However at the time, the four British Associations did not choose to accept players without parents pertaining to the nation. The Herald reported that "until recently that would have been enough to give him qualification to play for Scotland. But under an agreement by the four home associations it is not enough any more."

...

1993 agreement

The four associations met on 27 February 1993 at Hanbury Manor in Hertfordshire. The Scottish Football Association (SFA) released minutes from the meeting to the press.


"On the occasion of the meeting of the International Football Association Board on February 27, 1993 the four British associations ratified the following agreement, which came into force on February 1, 1993, on the criteria which should determine the eligibility of the player to be selected for one of the national teams of the British associations:


His country of birth.
The country of birth of his natural mother or father.
The country of birth of his natural grandmother or grandfather.
Where the player, both natural parents, and both natural grandparents are born outside the UK, but the player is the holder of a current British passport, he may play for the country of his choice."


— Scottish Football Association


The Home Nations were long a law unto themselves in many ways, so I'd imagine they had FIFA approval for any restrictive internal agreements, or they just told FIFA they were going ahead with things regardless! :p

In spite of the existence of a set of rules with strict criteria, we have to remember that the promotion and protection (rather than the restriction) of players is also a desire of FIFA, so the organisation won't look too kindly upon policies it might deem unnecessarily restrictive, which is why any internal Home Nations agreement must first have Executive Committee approval.

[osarusan]

Some more info on the Home Nations agreement in place until 1993 that rendered Kernaghan ineligible for the IFA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_eligibility_rules#Home_nations_agreement



1993 agreement

The four associations met on 27 February 1993 at Hanbury Manor in Hertfordshire. The Scottish Football Association (SFA) released minutes from the meeting to the press.

"On the occasion of the meeting of the International Football Association Board on February 27, 1993 the four British associations ratified the following agreement, which came into force on February 1, 1993, on the criteria which should determine the eligibility of the player to be selected for one of the national teams of the British associations:

His country of birth.
The country of birth of his natural mother or father.
The country of birth of his natural grandmother or grandfather.
Where the player, both natural parents, and both natural grandparents are born outside the UK, but the player is the holder of a current British passport, he may play for the country of his choice."

— Scottish Football Association

The above line in bold is interesting, because as recently as 2008, regarding Nacho Novo becoming a UK citizen and playing for Scotland, the SFA comments suggested that an agreement existed (and would continue to exist) which would not allow such players (UK passport holders, but without UK parents or grandparents) to be selected:


The four Home Nations have agreed to stick by a "gentleman's agreement" that will rule out any approach from Scotland for Spaniard Nacho Novo.

The Rangers striker had said he would accept a call to represent Scotland.

And England coach Fabio Capello was thought to be keen on picking Spaniards Manuel Almunia and Mikel Arteta.

But the Scottish Football Association has confirmed that the Home Nations would continue to pick players based only on bloodlines.

Novo, 29, has spent eight years playing in Scotland and admitted he would consider applying for a UK passport and switching allegiance to his adopted country, if asked.

Scotland manager George Burley refused to rule out the option of picking Novo, while SFA president George Peat was opposed to any change to the current criteria for selection.

There has been some confusion and much debate in recent days about whether or not Nacho Novo can play for Scotland," said SFA chief executive Gordon Smith.

"On one hand, the Fifa regulations say that George Burley can pick eligible players who hold a British passport - and, on the other, we have the gentlemen's agreement with the other Home Associations that says that we will pick players based on their bloodline.

"I have sought to clarify the issue. We have had discussions with the other associations in the past couple of days and I've found out that everyone is adhering to our agreement and that, subsequently, we're all going down the line that we will use bloodline as the basis for eligibility.

"Now, at some stage in the future, one or more of us may change our opinion on that - we may get together and change our decision and go for the full Fifa regulation - but, at the moment, we're all sticking to our agreement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/7702704.stm

[DannyInvincible]

That is interesting. In 2008, the following (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/51/56/07/transfer_commentary_06_en_1843.pdf) would have been in effect, which would appear to have rendered Novo perfectly eligible, if I'm interpreting it correctly:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc12/poguemahone85/transfer_zpsllmtxtg5.png

I'm not sure if the two were causally related or whether the revision was simply as a result of FIFA's 2008 regulations update, but soon after Novo was in the headlines, also in 2008, as you say, Wikipedia indicates that the four British associations came together in 2009 to close "the loophole" and came up with a "revised ruling" that "also remove[d] the possibility of ineligibility due to an foreign-born adopted player having no parental or grand-parental links to a nation". That was when the stipulation for five years of education pre-18 was added with FIFA's express approval.

[DannyInvincible]

Obviously, the difficulty in all of this is a theoretical impossibility in proving to FIFA or a court of law that a particular otherwise eligible player's non-selection is as a result of a clandestine (but suspected) restrictive policy on the part of an association that might breach certain player rights rather than as a result of pure quality/utility considerations on the part of the association, which are acceptable grounds for "discrimination". Even if an internal agreement or policy was public knowledge, how exactly would a player go about proving that he would otherwise have been actually considered for selection by an association (considering there is no obligation for an association to select any player or consider all eligible players) were it not for the internal agreement or policy?

The rights mentioned by CAS, FIFA, Casserly and Yann, however, must be in some way enforceable and must impose some sort of obligation upon someone. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother mentioning them. I'll try and seek Yann's opinion on this and will mention the Novo case also as it would appear the British associations were operating an agreement in contravention of FIFA's express rules at the time if what the SFA representative said was true.

[DannyInvincible]

I came across an article from yesteryear in relation to Ruaidhrí Higgins from Limavady having been refused permission to join up with Pat Fenlon's Ireland under-23 squad by UEFA on the basis that he had "no connections with the Republic": http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/sport/mhmheymhgbkf/


Ireland under-23 manager Pat Fenlon has become the first boss to fall foul of UEFA's blocking of Northern players representing the Republic.

Fenlon wanted to bring Ruairdhi Higgins into his squad to play Slovakia next month.

However, UEFA refused to sanction the move as the Derry City midfielder has no connections with the Republic.

Obviously, this was around the final quarter of 2007 when FIFA suffered a brief brain-fart on the eligibility matter, spawning this piece in the Irish Independent about the FAI "winning the battle" for Gibson but "losing the war" on eligibility: http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/fai-secure-gibson-but-lose-out-in-fifas-ruling-26326734.html

I was never aware that any Irish national players had been directly affected by this in 2007 until I came across this Examiner article. Were any other players halted around this time? We also suspected that the Players' Status Committee might have temporarily suspended the granting of permission of players to switch between the IFA and FAI whilst the Kearns case was ongoing in 2010 as Shane Duffy's switch took a while to be processed, although we never had confirmation of this and it could well possibly have been down to nothing more than the usual bureaucracy involved in processing a formal switch between associations.

The Independent article is dated the 23rd of October and the Examiner article is dated the 30th of October. According to CAS in the Kearns case, FIFA contacted the IFA on the 5th of November to let them know that the FAI did not accept the "proposal" of the 7th of March to restrict selection to players on the basis of the then-article 16/17 criteria. On what basis was Higgins denied permission to play for the FAI then and why/how did "only a recommendation, not based on regulatory considerations but on self-imposed restrictions", seem to have some sort erroneous legal effect for a period of just under a fortnight in the latter half of 2007? Did FIFA temporarily treat the Irish birth nationality of players born in the north as if it constituted a newly acquired nationality, thus, meaning article 17 temporarily applied to the situation?

[Paddy Garcia]

This guy on the television now in the FA youth cup semi final playing for Chelsea - seems caught in two minds. Or three!

Kyle Scott
UNDER-18S

Date of birth: 12 December 1997
Place of birth: Bath
Position: Midfield
International levels played at: USA Under-18s, Republic of Ireland Under-17s, England Under-16s

[Olé Olé]

This guy on the television now in the FA youth cup semi final playing for Chelsea - seems caught in two minds. Or three!

Kyle Scott
UNDER-18S

Date of birth: 12 December 1997
Place of birth: Bath
Position: Midfield
International levels played at: USA Under-18s, Republic of Ireland Under-17s, England Under-16s

Interesting. Also has a brother called Kristian who has been with Swansea, Stoke and Leicester (where he is now) in the last few seasons.

http://www.lcfc.com/news/article/010914-kristian-scott-joins-lcfc-development-squad-1891794.aspx

Found a thread here: http://foot.ie/threads/182896-Kyle-Scott

[DannyInvincible]

As I said I would, I sought further clarification on some of the matters discussed above from Yann Hafner. Yann is happy for me to outline the content of the exchanges, so I'll do so below.

Yann informed me that the FIFA Executive Committee was granted the express right to regulate on the issues of naturalised players and shared nationalities in 2003, so I wondered if that, in theory, meant that the four British associations were free to come up with whatever sort of internal or gentlemen's agreements they wished before then without FIFA interference. Yann clarified:


You can always enter into a gentleman’s agreement. However, it does not mean it is legal nor enforceable. What is sure, is that prior the 2006 Commentary, FIFA did not address the issue specifically. After 2006, FIFA had “exhausted” its regulatory power and that national associations could no longer enter into a specific agreement without the express approval of FIFA.

I outlined the case of Alan Kernaghan to him and questioned if the British associations' pre-1993 "rule" (that was obviously enforceable as it prevented the IFA from selecting him) would have required or been in force with FIFA's approval? He said he did not think so, in both cases, since it was a gentleman's agreement. He did, however, concur that such a rule would not be formally enforceable nowadays (unless maintained informally), as it would contravene the governing regulations.

I then raised the case of Nacho Novo, as it seemed to contradict this. I posed the following:


I was just wondering about the case of Nacho Novo. On the fact of it, he would have been eligible to play for Scotland (on basis of the 2006 Transfer Commentary wording) when he was in the headlines in 2008, but, at the time, the SFA stated that he wasn't eligible as they were abiding by an agreement with the other British associations: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7702704.stm


"On one hand, the Fifa regulations say that George Burley can pick eligible players who hold a British passport - and, on the other, we have the gentlemen's agreement with the other Home Associations that says that we will pick players based on their bloodline.

"I have sought to clarify the issue. We have had discussions with the other associations in the past couple of days and I've found out that everyone is adhering to our agreement and that, subsequently, we're all going down the line that we will use bloodline as the basis for eligibility.

Wouldn't such an internal agreement have required FIFA approval? Could Novo, as a new British citizen seemingly otherwise eligible under FIFA rules (he had never represented Spain), have argued that such a policy infringed upon any particular rights he might have had under the rules with authoritive primacy to, say, declare for Scotland? Obviously, there is no obligation upon an association to select any player - they are reasonably entitled to "discriminate" on the basis of player quality or utility - but you have mentioned personality rights and the concept of proportionality in our exchanges. Indeed, David Casserly representing Daniel Kearns in his case against the IFA also mentioned the protection of Kearns' personality rights, whilst CAS stated that any "gentleman's agreement" between the IFA and the FAI to prevent Irish nationals born in Northern Ireland from playing for the Republic of Ireland would have been to infringe upon Kearns' rights under then-articles 15-18. What are the nature of such rights and what obligations do they impose upon an association exactly? They must impose some obligation as of what substance would they be in terms of rights otherwise? To me, it would seem to imply that a player has a right to declare for, or at least be available for selection for, an association assuming he satisfies all other necessary criteria. In your opinion, could Novo have used a similar argument if he really wanted to push the issue, especially as the British associations' agreement seemed to contradict FIFA's position then indisputably in force?

Yann responded with the following:


Since a gentleman agreement is not legally binding, FIFA would not have been required to approve it. In other words, it is only a practice decided by the four associations. For instance, the New Zealand Rugby Union selects only players living in New Zealand. If a player leaves the country, he renounces being selected. You are thus correct in assuming that national associations have a large power when selecting their players. However, there are always limits:

In the Kearns case, IFA and FAI had no possibility to enter into a formal agreement. FIFA rules do not provide for this opportunity. Accordingly, any gentleman’s agreement would have been null and void because of the rights recognized to Kearns under the FIFA regulations: Kearns was simply exercising his right to change national affiliation.

In the Home Nations[/Nacho Novo] case, the situation is a little bit different. The four associations have the right to enter into an agreement limiting the eligibility of certain British players (article 6 para 2 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes). This is perfectly valid under the current FIFA regulations. However, they do not have the right to go beyond what the FIFA regulations mandate (article 6 para 2, first sentence, of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes). In this respect, it seems that their “selection policy” is clearly in breach of the latter. Nonetheless, Novo’s position is, in my opinion, a little bit weaker than the one of Kearns since he is not exercising or prevented to exercise any formal right under the FIFA regulations (he has no right to be called by his national side). Still, this does not mean that Novo has no remedy. For instance, he could go to FIFA in order to secure an injunction ”dismantling” the gentleman’s agreement. Again, the SFA could simply not call him… (thus abiding informally to an agreement no longer in force). This is a thorny issue…

[DannyInvincible]

I posed some further questions and scenarios for further illumination on the possibility of internal association policies and the nature of player rights, including personality rights:


Myself: For the sake of argument, say, if the FAI and IFA had an informal agreement whereby the FAI agreed not to select Irish nationals by birth who were born in Northern Ireland, would such a "selection policy" of the FAI be viable within the rules?

Yann: No – there is no room within the current regulatory context for such an agreement. Only associations sharing a common nationality may enter into an agreement – which must be ratified by FIFA (article 6 para 2, second sentence, of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes). FIFA regulations are “mandatory rules” (ie “overriding mandatory provisions” if they were part of a national state law) in this context. National associations have no possibility to bend the rules.

Myself: This would be slightly different to the Kearns issue where Kearns' "right to switch association" was specifically mentioned and upheld. If Kearns had not first played for the IFA, for example, would he have had any enforceable right(s)?

Yann: The difficult part is always proving that there is a gentleman’s agreement in force. If it is made public or the association publicly stated that it would not select him because of an agreement, he may have had a case.

Myself: Would he, as an Irish national by birth, have had a right to be at least available for selection by the FAI?

Yann: Under FIFA regulations, he is available for selection.

Myself: The above is often suggested by unionist politicians and supporters of Northern Ireland as a "solution" to the fact that Irish nationals born in Northern Ireland are eligible to play for the Republic of Ireland, although (thankfully, I say) there's no indication that the FAI would ever consider agreeing to or employing such a restrictive policy against a certain category of Irish nationals by birth based upon the location of their birth, but, in theory, would there be anything in FIFA law (or higher) that would stop the FAI from employing such a policy like, say, the New Zealand Rugby Union does in rugby, even if it were a unilateral decision and without the IFA's input?

Yann: As you suggest, the only way would be that the FAI endorses such a policy unilaterally. FIFA would have no say in the matter.

Myself: Even if a player exercised his right to switch under article 8, hypothetically, the "losing" and "receiving" associations could comply with the administrative side of the request under FIFA regulations, but the "receiving" association could still just refrain from selecting the player on the basis of a secret agreement and nobody would know any better.

Yann: This is unfortunately always possible.

Myself: I'm not an expert in the field of personality rights by any means, but you have mentioned them in relation to Breel Embolo and they were also mentioned in the Kearns case by Kearns' solicitor, David Casserly; what sort of obligation might such rights impose upon associations/FIFA? Could they potentially prevent an association from adopting a unilateral selection policy (so long as the policy was known, in order for an affected player to bring an action against it)? Could Novo have viably claimed his personality rights were being infringed upon by the seemingly-informal British associations' agreement at the time, for example?

Yann: Personality rights (under article 28 Swiss Civil Code) are the equivalent of constitutional rights within a private context, ie when dealing with in the relations between individuals. In a sporting context, they protect for instance the right of an individual to his physical integrity, to participate in sport at the appropriate level (in an amateur context), to engage in commercial activities (economic freedom – in a professional context), to privacy, to his name and image, etc. An infringement of personality rights is unlawful unless it is justified by the consent of the person whose rights are infringed or by an overriding public or private interest or by law (article 28, para 2, Swiss Civil Code).

In Novo’s case, he certainly did not consent to the infringement of his personality rights and there was no law (enacted by the State) addressing the issue. It was thus left to the concept of overriding private interest to decide on the matter. This means, that the national association posing a ban on Novo would have had to explain to a Court why it did so and to prove that its interests were of superior value than the rights of Novo to be available for selection.

Myself: If FIFA were to legally provide for a formal agreement between the FAI and IFA under special circumstances in relation to the selection of Northern Ireland-born Irish nationals by the FAI (as FIFA did seem content to do during 2007, although such consideration was discarded by 2008 once the nature of the Irish situation and Irish nationality became clearer to FIFA), would an Irish national player born in Northern Ireland who sought to play for the Republic of Ireland on the basis of his nationality have a viable case if he alleged unreasonable discrimination (disproportionality perhaps?), an infringement of his personality rights or something along those lines? After all, it would be a situation whereby certain nationals by birth of one country were being treated differently under the rules from all other nationals by birth globally, simply on the basis of the location of their birth (in Northern Ireland).

Yann: FIFA is bound by its regulations. As previously stated, only associations sharing a common nationality may currently enter into a specific agreement. Thus, the player would simply have to point out to the Court that there is no legal basis for this agreement and that FIFA has no authority to ratify it. The argument resorts to the law of association (under article 75 Swiss Civil Code). In addition, the player may also raise the argument of the infringement of his personality rights.

Myself: If FIFA expressly regulated/provisioned for a restrictive agreement between the FAI and IFA that denied Irish nationals the opportunity to be selected by the FAI, would that nullify the viability of any possible case that an affected Irish national player born in Northern Ireland might have against the associations/FIFA?

Yann: That would not nullify the viability of the case per se. In your hypothesis, the player could only rely on the infringement of his personality rights to argue his case (he is prevented from playing for what he feels “his country”). He could not resort to the law of association.

[DannyInvincible]

Balls.ie have written something on the debuts of Houghton and Aldridge against Wales 29 years ago today and it quotes some opinions from the time on our utilisation of the "granny rule": http://balls.ie/football/29-years-ago-today-was-a-momentous-day-for-irish-football/


A dreadful pitch, a less than half-full ground, an afternoon kick-off on a weekday and a dreary 1-0 loss to unglamorous opposition – but a momentous day for Irish football.

Twenty-nine years ago today, Ireland lost 1-0 to Wales in front of 17,000 spectators in Jack Charlton’s first ever game as Ireland manager.

The game also marked the first time Ray Houghton and John Aldridge ever lined out for Ireland.

It was the latter debuts which dominated whatever coverage was accorded to the game in the UK.

Aldridge was banging in the goals for Oxford United, then in the First Division. Clubmate Davy Langan – a Dubliner and first choice full back throughout the Eoin Hand era – alerted Jack to Aldridge’s Irish connections.

Charlton liked the idea of plucking lads of Irish descent from the English League and went to watch him. Afterwards, while talking to Aldridge and Langan, Charlton also learned that Oxford’s busy and impressive midfielder Ray Houghton had a Donegal-born father. He had found two first-rate players in one trip to Oxford.

Both Houghton and Aldridge made highly publicised debuts against Wales. The British football community greeted the news with a mixture of bemusement and irritation. The cockney half of Saint & Greavsie had signalled his opposition to the development.


I think you gotta draw the line somewhere, Saint. I mean my grandparents were Irish. I was born in the East End of London. I talk like this, ‘ow can I play for Ireland?

At the time it was negative press for the national football team but the first thing any Irish fan thinks now is ‘why didn’t we get Jimmy Greaves to play for us?’

Even the Wales manager aimed a few kicks at Ireland’s new recruitment policy in the pre-match interviews. Mike England was pretty scathing.


The rest of the football world thinks this business is a huge joke. If you’ve been to Dublin for a fortnight’s holiday, you get called up.

Irish youngsters must feel very upset about it.

Did the entire football world really think of it as a big joke? Or was it just the four British associations that had an issue with it? The four British associations had always been reluctant to exploit the "granny rule" and were openly hostile to it, but it's not as if Ireland have been the only nation to gain advantage from selecting players qualifying through grand-parentage down through the years. Italy have always had their oriundi, for example. Other nations have benefited too. If the football world really thought of the practice as such a joke, then why allow it to continue and later explicitly protect the eligibility of nationals through grand-parentage when criteria were first brought into the regulations in 2004 to distinguish between certain nationals in terms of eligibility/ineligibility?

[tetsujin1979]

Hmmmm, I actually remember Greavsie saying that, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in 1986.

[DannyInvincible]

God blissus 'n' sivvus; is there nothing sacred any more?!: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/international/2015/0327/690167-protest-planned-as-northern-ireland-play-on-sundat/

Even my old buddy, Gary McAllister, wades in with some rich comments about respecting choice...


Religious protests have been planned in opposition to Northern Ireland's first ever home Sunday fixture against Finland.

The national side have played overseas on a Sunday in the past, most recently in their opening Euro 2016 qualifier in Hungary, but this weekend will break new ground in Belfast.

The Irish Football Association has been careful in the past not to arrange Sunday fixtures, and once had an article of association enshrining such a policy, but was powerless to act once UEFA introduced its 'week of football' blueprint for the current qualifying campaign.

But that cuts no ice with critics, some of whom have called on the IFA to boycott the fixture.

The Free Presbyterian Church is planning to hold a service at its Tyndale Memorial church, located just a few hundred yards from Windsor Park, 75 minutes before the 5pm kick-off.

The Evangelical Protestant Society, meanwhile, has issued a statement expressing its dismay at events.

"This will be the first time an international football match has been held in Belfast on a Sunday, and it marks another watershed moment in modern Ulster's increasing rejection of the Lord's Day," it read.

"Far too many sporting and social events are now organised on Sundays with, it seems, scant regard for the rights of evangelicals who, because of their faith, are unable to be involved. Many evangelical Protestants are ardent fans of the national team and would dearly love to be present at the match.

"We fully accept that we are out of step with the majority of public opinion on this matter, and we suspect that many who claim to be Protestants will be present at Windsor Park on Sunday."

Northern Ireland boss Michael O'Neill, speaking earlier this week to the Belfast Telegraph, said: "We appreciate and understand people's religious beliefs - but the game must be played on Sunday, as that date was decreed when the fixture was made by UEFA.

"We hope for a victory on the night, and for the usual wonderful support from all Northern Ireland fans."

There was a conciliatory message from Gary McAllister, chairman of the Amalgamation of Northern Ireland Supporters' Clubs.

McAllister told Press Association Sport: "We understand there will be a protest near the stadium and that is their right. I imagine it will be very peaceful and they are fully entitled to do that.

"But this is not an IFA decision and I don't think suggestions that the game is forfeited are realistic at all.

"It is clearly a matter of choice. Some fans have made the decision not to attend for sincerely held beliefs and no doubt they are passionate as any other fans.

"I fully respect those who oppose it but it must be, and it will be, played."

[Gather round]

Did the entire football world really think of it as a big joke?

The 'Football World' for English tabloid media then (and with phone-ins and social media now) meant/ means England. In 1986 it widely ridiculed the FAI calling up lots of players from England. Not so much the Scotland, Wales and NI FAs. Wider political events presumably influenced this.


God blissus 'n' sivvus; is there nothing sacred any more?!: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/inter...lay-on-sundat/

Even my old buddy, Gary McAllister, wades in with some rich comments about respecting choice...

A conciliatory older and wiser Gary moves on from his mistakes...but Danny can't resist a snide ;)

You should take Larry Olivier's advice BTW. Avoid roles with foreign accents...

[Irwin3]

Balls.ie have written something on the debuts of Houghton and Aldridge against Wales 29 years ago today and it quotes some opinions from the time on our utilisation of the "granny rule": http://balls.ie/football/29-years-ago-today-was-a-momentous-day-for-irish-football/



Did the entire football world really think of it as a big joke? Or was it just the four British associations that had an issue with it? The four British associations had always been reluctant to exploit the "granny rule" and were openly hostile to it, but it's not as if Ireland have been the only nation to gain advantage from selecting players qualifying through grand-parentage down through the years. Italy have always had their oriundi, for example. Other nations have benefited too. If the football world really thought of the practice as such a joke, then why allow it to continue and later explicitly protect the eligibility of nationals through grand-parentage when criteria were first brought into the regulations in 2004 to distinguish between certain nationals in terms of eligibility/ineligibility?

Danny, don't forget that a big difference with the UK is that it doesn't pass on citizenship further than through parents. i.e. if the 4 nations had their own citizenships and passports with their current rules, (English born player with Scottish grandparent - i.e. James Morrison) wouldn't be a Scottish citizen and would have no right to it. Ourselves and countries with strong 'jus sanguinis' like Italy have long sought to enable our diasporas to maintain their nationality through the generations if they so wish to do so.

[DannyInvincible]

Danny, don't forget

Don't worry, I didn't forget. I simply never knew in the first place! :)

For some reason, I'd kind of just unthinkingly assumed British citizenship was similar to ours on that front even though I have read around its details and particulars from time to time. I guess a mention of grandparentage can't stand out to a reader when it's absent.

[Irwin3]

Don't worry, I didn't forget. I simply never knew in the first place! :)

For some reason, I'd kind of just unthinkingly assumed British citizenship was similar to ours on that front even though I have read around its details and particulars from time to time. I guess a mention of grandparentage can't stand out to a reader when its absent.

Yeah, it's interesting to find out the peculiarities of different country's citizenship rules. When I was younger and people talked about the granny rule I realised that through my grandfather I was eligible for the USA, although obviously myself, and as I found out, even my father had no right to American citizenship. The USA doesn't pass down citizenship automatically even to children, unless the parent has lived a certain amount of time in the USA. I think my grandfather would have had to have lived in the USA for 10 years (with at least 5 of these post-14th birthday) to have passed it down which he didn't have, having moved back to Ireland when he was just 1 year old.

In fact, just to check. In this case would I be eligible having an American born grandfather but with no American citizenship or passport?

[Charlie Darwin]

Yeah, it's interesting to find out the peculiarities of different country's citizenship rules. When I was younger and people talked about the granny rule I realised that through my grandfather I was eligible for the USA, although obviously myself, and as I found out, even my father had no right to American citizenship. The USA doesn't pass down citizenship automatically even to children, unless the parent has lived a certain amount of time in the USA. I think my grandfather would have had to have lived in the USA for 10 years (with at least 5 of these post-14th birthday) to have passed it down which he didn't have, having moved back to Ireland when he was just 1 year old.

In fact, just to check. In this case would I be eligible having an American born grandfather but with no American citizenship or passport?
geysir or Danny could correct me here, but the underlying condition for eligibility is that you hold permanent nationality, i.e. you either have a passport or are entitled to one should you seek it. So you wouldn't be eligible.

Darren Randolph, for instance, is eligible for Ireland and the US. I don't know if he has a US passport - he might not - but he'd be eligible as his American father could confer citizenship to him. He could probably actually play for the US while having only an Irish passport.

[Irwin3]

geysir or Danny could correct me here, but the underlying condition for eligibility is that you hold permanent nationality, i.e. you either have a passport or are entitled to one should you seek it. So you wouldn't be eligible.

Darren Randolph, for instance, is eligible for Ireland and the US. I don't know if he has a US passport - he might not - but he'd be eligible as his American father could confer citizenship to him. He could probably actually play for the US while having only an Irish passport.

Stupid question, that sounds right. Presumably though if they felt like handing me citizenship and a passport I would be eligible with no residency period necessary.

He'd be eligible as long as his father fulfilled the residency criteria (which he presumably does as it was made laxer in 1986) before his birth to pass on the citizenship. In fact it also depends on the parents marital status as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad _to_United_States_citizens

I see he is reported as being a dual-passport holder so it's a moot point.

[Charlie Darwin]

Stupid question, that sounds right. Presumably though if they felt like handing me citizenship and a passport I would be eligible with no residency period necessary.

He'd be eligible as long as his father fulfilled the residency criteria (which he presumably does as it was made laxer in 1986) before his birth to pass on the citizenship. In fact it also depends on the parents marital status as well.
If they granted you citizenship, you'd still be subject to the criteria in Article 6 (page 63) here: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/02/14/97/88/fifastatuten2013_e_neutral.pdf

As far as I know, Randolph's father was born and raised in the US to American-born parents so his citizenship is permanent. That would satisfy the criteria of Article 6.

[DannyInvincible]

Charlie is correct. As is outlined in the general principle found in article 5, back to which both articles 6 and 7 refer, possessing the nationality is a prerequisite before the various other criteria (birthplace/parentage/grandparentage/residence) come into play. Each article specifies that a player must first be in possession of the relevant nationality.

A passport is simply documentary evidence of possession of a certain nationality, so one can certainly be a national of a certain country without being in possession of a passport of that country. As far as I know, FIFA prefer that players of respective nations hold the passport of that nation. I guess it makes checks and administration that bit more straightforward, but, as we know, NI players can play for NI with just an Irish passport so long as the IFA otherwise verify their eligibility (that being an official entitlement to British citizenship and satisfying one of the four aforementioned criteria of article 6 with respect to the territory of the IFA).

[DannyInvincible]

Stupid question, that sounds right. Presumably though if they felt like handing me citizenship and a passport I would be eligible with no residency period necessary.

I would think so, aye.

And it'd be under article 7, Charlie, but I'm guessing you just got mixed up between the numbers. Article 6 is for shared nationalities. :p

[Irwin3]

If they granted you citizenship, you'd still be subject to the criteria in Article 6 (page 63) here: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/02/14/97/88/fifastatuten2013_e_neutral.pdf

As far as I know, Randolph's father was born and raised in the US to American-born parents so his citizenship is permanent. That would satisfy the criteria of Article 6.

Presumably, if they handed me a passport I'd be acquiring a new nationality and would qualify through article 7.

The point about USA citizenship is that it isn't automatically passed down to children. Criteria have to be met. My father is in the same position as Randolph but he is not a US citizen due to his father not fulfilling the residency criteria. Randolph, on the other hand is as his father must've met the criteria.

[Charlie Darwin]

Yeah, Article 7. It's been a long day and all the numbers look the same :)

[DannyInvincible]

Something I had published on Goal.com today regarding Frank Feighan's ignorant comments a while back on the entitlement of Irish nationals born north of the border to opt to play for Ireland: http://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/3942/ireland/2015/03/29/10236972/politicians-misguided-over-settled-irish-eligibility?ICID=HP_FT_2

Goal wished to coincide it with the international weekend, so that's the reason for the delay.

I have a more-detailed, unabridged version of the dissection of Feighan's comments here: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/north-men-south-men-comrades-all-part-one/

And an analysis of the actual discussion on the matter then at the 50th plenary session of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/north-men-south-men-comrades-all-part-two/

There were participants there from both the FAI and IFA.

[Stuttgart88]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32099083

There's that ruling again, you know, the one that allows NI born players to choose to play either of the the two teams in Ireland.

[DannyInvincible]

It really shouldn't because I've had long enough to get used to it, but their descriptions and explanations always really grate when it comes to them mentioning the eligibility matter. Whoever keeps writing that guff for the BBC, or whoever it was decided that that is how they would consistently explain the eligibility of Irish players, as if there is a specific ruling in place to cover just an Irish situation; it's so obvious it's an interpretation of something they just read or heard from some other ignoramus without doing even the scantest bit of research to actually clarify the governing regulations.

[Gather round]

Something I had published on Goal.com today regarding Frank Feighan's ignorant comments a while back on the entitlement of Irish nationals born north of the border to opt to play for Ireland: http://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/3942/ireland/2015/03/29/10236972/politicians-misguided-over-settled-irish-eligibility?ICID=HP_FT_2

Goal wished to coincide it with the international weekend, so that's the reason for the delay.

I have a more-detailed, unabridged version of the dissection of Feighan's comments here: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/north-men-south-men-comrades-all-part-one/

And an analysis of the actual discussion on the matter then at the 50th plenary session of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/north-men-south-men-comrades-all-part-two/

There were participants there from both the FAI and IFA


Frank Feighan TD of Fine Gael declared that “while the Good Friday Agreement entitles those born in Northern Ireland to dual citizenship, the trend in [football] players from north of the border declaring for the Republic deserves careful consideration”

Isn't it largely a convenient (if lazy) shorthand? The GFA confirms a long-existing situation, rather than creating an entitlement. Feighan must know that, but also probably feels he needs to be emollient towards the IFA, NI fans, Unionist politicans and the Belfast media.


Depriving players of the choice to play for their country and trying to compel or force them to play for another association with whom they do not identify does nothing to aid relations or reconciliation...[Feighan] talks about “exploratory talks” being needed, as if to suggest this issue is an elephant in the living room. He misinforms us that “[c]alls from Unionist voices for Fifa and the British and Irish Government to intervene on this issue have received little response”. In fact, the situation has already been examined in great detail by football’s governing body

Has Feighan made any specific suggestions (eg, 'guys from NI shouldn't play for the Republic', or with qualification 'if they've already played U-19, U-21 or in a friendly up there'). Or is he just throwing out vague platitudes?


Feighan advises us that “the FAI and football community south of the border must be sensitive to the concerns of their counterparts in Belfast”, but this is to completely misunderstand an issue that has been framed by the FAI’s detractors as one involving the “poaching” of northern-born players

He has a point. Of course the FAI and RoI fans don't HAVE to be sensitive to stop the IFA and NI fans/ politicans/ media gurning, because clearly the latter three groups will gurn anyway. So maybe not so strong a point ;)


Perhaps Feighan genuinely has noble intentions, but his encouragement demonstrates an exceptional lack of sensitivity to the nationalist community - his compatriots - north of the border

Maybe he's more interested in cosying up to his colleagues on the cross-border junket? Also, never underestimate Fine Gael partitionism...


so talk of poaching, as if to suggest the FAI are involved in the illegal theft of unwilling players, is somewhat disingenuous

The way you characterise it is somewhat exaggerated. Nobody's comparing it to a press gang. NI fans are ****ed off that someone can agree to a call up for a latest cap for us one day, then move to your squad the next.


Governmental intervention or an internal agreement between the FAI and the IFA with the aim of restricting the selection or switching of Irish nationals born in Northern Ireland by or to the FAI would be in direct contravention of Fifa's rules

Government intervention straightforwardly yes; Martin O'Neill agreeing tacitly with Michael that he won't call up Paddy McNair (say) a bit less so. Because it's tacit, it's effectively trivial. So the Law ignores it.

I think we've already established any 'deal' couldn't be formalised.


The prospect of an all-unionist or all-Protestant community Northern Ireland team simply has not transpired since the headline case of Darron Gibson nearly a decade ago, nor is there any indication that it will. For Feighan 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 for which there is absolutely no evidence

Surely he means effectively all-Unionist fanbase, not players? If so, it's not scaremongering, some exaggeration at worst.


If we are to believe the welcome contribution of Claire Adams at the panel discussion, along with the public utterances of her association in relation to the matter in latter times, the IFA have since come to terms with the reality of the situation once again and have re-acknowledged the right of Irish nationals to opt to play for their country

Yes, I'm confident her attitude is positive and genuine. But we all know a lot of fans will disagree, while politicans go gombeen and journalists stir the ****.


It is therefore puzzling as to why Feighan wishes to re-ignite the flames of this issue at the present moment in time. Sometimes, more so than anything else, it is the misleading comments of misguided politicians that deserve our careful consideration

I've suggested some explanation above. Broadly Frank's motive may be mainly to boost his own career and contacts. He's probably cuter than you give credit. You don't need to over-rate his importance, though.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Danny wins.

So what...