Eligibility Rules, Okay

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Didn't this odious individual kick up a stink when Shane Duffy had the temerity to declare for us? Then why is he contradicting himself? Duffy's father is from Donegal.

Someone would really want to pull this creep up on his tiresome nonsense.

[BonnieShels]

Duffy's father's provenance is irrelevant. Shane Duffy is an Irishman who decided to declare for his country. That he is also eligible for the IFA's representative team is irrelevant.

[Charlie Darwin]

Didn't this odious individual kick up a stink when Shane Duffy had the temerity to declare for us? Then why is he contradicting himself? Duffy's father is from Donegal.

Someone would really want to pull this creep up on his tiresome nonsense.
Don't think Mick O'Neill made any comment on Duffy. He might have later grouped him with the others out of ignorance, as many do.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Michael O'Neill is Art Garfunkel to Martin O'Neill's Paul Simon.

The sound of silence is the only sound I want to hear coming from Michael O'Neill. He should build a bridge... over troubled water.

[osarusan]

Maybe it's all part of his jealousy of never getting to play for the "true" country of his birth/bloodline as opposed to the jurisdictional anomaly in which he was birthed. And therefore he has to wage this petty war with the dastardly FAI.
It's mad that as mental and annoying and downright [insert insult] Nigel W was, he never went on or bleated as much shoite about eligibility as Mícheal Uí Néill.
Perhaps the FAI will pay him 5 million to shut up.

[DannyInvincible]

F*ck sake, TOWK, if you keep posting like you have been on this matter of late, you're going to leave me with no other option but to warm to you! :)

I see Stutts cleared up the misleading suggestion that the IFA suffer at the hands of some unique ruling, but naturally had to offer a response myself: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/11/michael-oneill-northern-ireland-euro-2016-qualifying#comment-53644086

[DannyInvincible]

Maybe it's all part of his jealousy of never getting to play for the "true" country of his birth/bloodline as opposed to the jurisdictional anomaly in which he was birthed. And therefore he has to wage this petty war with the dastardly FAI.
It's mad that as mental and annoying and downright [insert insult] Nigel W was, he never went on or bleated as much shoite about eligibility as Mícheal Uí Néill.

To be fair, I still think Worthnothing was worse. He was always, always, always bleating on about it. Michael O'Neill appears only to have started within the past fortnight after having initially made promising, forward-thinking and self-responsible noises.

[Gather round]

Mikey clearly fancies himself as a sort of discount Mourinho. He talks nonsense about bloodlines, thus distracting attention from the players who are then free to give Janos Hungarian* and Yianni Greek* good solid beatings :rolleyes:

* top seeded oppo, for you youngsters who can't remember as far back as 2001

Some other S & G hits for Knocker to cover

The only living geriatric striker in LA
59th FIFA ranking place song (feeling dreamy)
Disgraceland
I am a Rock of Gibraltar (no easy games internationally)
The Boxer goes to Stuttgart (possibly not via anywhere in france)

[Stuttgart88]

I usually look forward to your posts and tolerate any partisanship, but the above was truly sad.

[BonnieShels]

To be fair, I still think Worthnothing was worse. He was always, always, always bleating on about it. Michael O'Neill appears only to have started within the past fortnight after having initially made promising, forward-thinking and self-responsible noises.

Maybe because it was a Unionist bleating, I therefore expected it, so I blanked it out.

[Gather round]

I usually look forward to your posts and tolerate any partisanship, but the above was truly sad

That's big, non-partisan and tolerant of you, thanks :rolleyes:

You can't expect top-notch material in a comedy masterclass on this thread.It would fly way over some regulars' heads.

PS i see from today's paper that Robbie Keane has suffered a family bereavement. Condolences.

[ArdeeBhoy]

To be fair The Rotund one has turned sad into an art form...

[Irwin3]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33500785

Presumably, either New Zealand never requested the 'special dispensation' from FIFA or the OFC are acting under their own interpretation of the eligibility statutes.

Wynne played all 4 games for New Zealand at the recent FIFA U'20 world cup and has played 12 times for the senior and underage teams in total.

The BBC article is poorly written. It seems to be unaware that many players (including English players) have qualified to represent countries without having birth links or 5 years residency after age 18 in the country.

Also I'm sure it's been raised before, but why is it that only the Home Nations have the 5 years education before 18 clause. As far as I understand this includes all British citizens, born or naturalised immigrants. So if Wynne in the same circumstances had moved to England he would be eligible for them, but because he moved to New Zealand he isn't automatically eligible. Maybe I'm missing something and the players who acquire British nationality still require the 'special dispensation'.

[DannyInvincible]

Unusual one. Assuming the allegation is true, why is Wynne's ineligibility only being picked up upon now considering he has already played in FIFA-sanctioned competition for NZ? It definitely appears he doesn't satisfy the strict wording of the statutes as he is only 20 (and wasn't born in NZ, nor were any of his parents/grandparents), so I can only assume, if FIFA are to uphold the complaint and dismiss the NZ appeal, that the NZ association hadn't requested the "special dispensation" that other young players have been granted by the Players' Status Committee. Is it possible that Wynne has been granted special dispensation by the FIFA PSC but that the OFC are not or have not been made aware of it and have jumped the gun, assuming the player to be ineligible on the basis of a strict application of the statutes?

The British associations (or any set of associations sharing a common nationality) are expressly permitted to delete or amend the fourth criterion, littera (d), of par. 1 of the article concerning them, article 6, by virtue of par. 2, if all are in common agreement, so the British associations have decided they'd prefer to expect otherwise-non-qualifying players to have completed 5 years of education before the age of 18 in the country concerned rather than have simply lived in the country concerned for 2 years, as is stipulated in the present wording of article 6.1(d).

[Irwin3]

It's strange because it only comes to light and becomes an issue due to Vanuatu lodging a protest following the match (you have a matter of hours to do so, I believe). Presumably, they were sitting on this information as someone in their camp was suspicious of the player's eligibility. But then, how would they know whether he had or had not been granted 'special dispensation' by the FIFA Players' Status Committee?

Ultimately, the statutes make clear that it is up to the national associations to ensure that their representatives satisfy the eligibility criteria, so if New Zealand failed to request Wynne's 'special dispensation' to enable him to play for them, that is on them.

From this article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11480439

it says that Wynne moved to New Zealand in January 2010 when he was 14 and he first represented New Zealand in 2014, so he was in the country less than 5 years at that time. For him to have inherited citizenship through his naturalised New Zealand citizen parent, this would have had to have happened before his 16th birthday in March 2011, meaning the parent would have had to have been living in New Zealand prior to March 2006. The other route to citizenship would be through a grant from the Minister of Internal Affairs that is in the public interest. Either way, he made his debut after living in the country for less than 5 years.

The article also has the following from the chief executive, Andy Martin:


Martin said the organisation believed all players were eligible and had received confirmation of this from the organisers of the Pacific Games, of which the qualifying tournament was a part.



They're not saying much as there is a legal case ongoing, but my guess would be that they were oblivious of the need to request any 'special dispensation' and just assumed he was eligible. I guess if an organisation is not used to such cases, they probably don't even have the required staff in place to ensure that all the appropriate i's are dotted and t's are crossed.

[geysir]

It's a misnomer to call the dispensation 'special', it's a routine dispensation granted, once it's established that the situation is transparently organic and not exploitative.

[DannyInvincible]

it says that Wynne moved to New Zealand in January 2010 when he was 14 and he first represented New Zealand in 2014, so he was in the country less than 5 years at that time. For him to have inherited citizenship through his naturalised New Zealand citizen parent, this would have had to have happened before his 16th birthday in March 2011, meaning the parent would have had to have been living in New Zealand prior to March 2006. The other route to citizenship would be through a grant from the Minister of Internal Affairs that is in the public interest. Either way, he made his debut after living in the country for less than 5 years.

Of course, we must remember that exemptions are granted on a case-by-case basis or, as it would appear from the cases to date, "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" (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805274&viewfull=1#post1805274). It's entirely possible that Wynne might still have been granted his routine exemption ( ;) ) despite only having resided in NZ for, say, three or four years.

[DannyInvincible]

According to Ben Strang, Andy Martin (head of NZF) thinks Wynne satisfies the eligibility criteria of article 6: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/70217950/new-zealand-footballs-deklan-wynne-eligibility-case-looks-clear-cut.html

Indeed, Wynne would satisfy article 6 (on account of having lived in NZ for at least two years) if that article actually applied to players of Kiwi nationality. It seems Martin has made the same mistake the IFA made with Kearns et al.

[Irwin3]

According to Ben Strang, Andy Martin (head of NZF) thinks Wynne satisfies the eligibility criteria of article 6: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/70217950/new-zealand-footballs-deklan-wynne-eligibility-case-looks-clear-cut.html

Indeed, Wynne would satisfy article 6 (on account of having lived in NZ for at least two years) if that article actually applied to players of Kiwi nationality. It seems Martin has made the same mistake the IFA made with Kearns et al.

Yeah, it seems as though they really didn't know what they're dealing with and haven't been asking for exemptions for players. Another article from that site.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/70227894/eligibility-crisis-could-affect-every-player-wishing-to-represent-new-zealand

[Stuttgart88]

I thought NZ had a separate carve-out granted by God to select any non-Aussie born in the Southern Hemisphere. Oh wait, that's rugby, sorry.

[geysir]

According to Ben Strang, Andy Martin (head of NZF) thinks Wynne satisfies the eligibility criteria of article 6: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/70217950/new-zealand-footballs-deklan-wynne-eligibility-case-looks-clear-cut.html

Indeed, Wynne would satisfy article 6 (on account of having lived in NZ for at least two years) if that article actually applied to players of Kiwi nationality. It seems Martin has made the same mistake the IFA made with Kearns et al.

'New Zealand Football chief executive Andy Martin said on Tuesday that his organisation believes Wynne is eligible to play for New Zealand based on Article 6 of the Fifa statutes.'
That interpretation of article 6 is misplaced.

'it is understood that Article 6 of the Fifa statutes relates to players who were born with dual nationality, giving them the ability to represent more than one national association at international level.'
Nope
Article 6 applies to a player whose single nationality qualifies him for more than one association.
However a NZ citizenship only qualifies a player to play for NZ and likewise a South African citizenship qualifies only for SA.
Therefore, the New Zealand FA, by using article 6, are trying to argue that Wynne' SA citizenship qualified him to play for NZ.
That's about as dumb as you can get (outside the borders of the IFA).
Even Blatter would be tempted to have a good laugh at that one.

All NZ had to do was just register Wynne with FIFA as if he was a regular dual national player and make it known that they had not kidnapped him from Africa.

[geysir]

'it is understood that Article 6 of the Fifa statutes relates to players who were born with dual nationality'

That's another thing, Wynne was not born a dual national.

If Wynne became a NZ citizen before the age of 18, then I suspect NZ would have a rock solid case.

[DannyInvincible]

'New Zealand Football chief executive Andy Martin said on Tuesday that his organisation believes Wynne is eligible to play for New Zealand based on Article 6 of the Fifa statutes.'
That interpretation of article 6 is misplaced.

'it is understood that Article 6 of the Fifa statutes relates to players who were born with dual nationality, giving them the ability to represent more than one national association at international level.'
Nope
Article 6 applies to a player whose single nationality qualifies him for more than one association.
However a NZ citizenship only qualifies a player to play for NZ and likewise a South African citizenship qualifies only for SA.
Therefore, the New Zealand FA, by using article 6, are trying to argue that Wynne' SA citizenship qualified him to play for NZ.
That's about as dumb as you can get (outside the borders of the IFA).
Even Blatter would be tempted to have a good laugh at that one.

All NZ had to do was just register Wynne with FIFA as if he was a regular dual national player and make it known that they had not kidnapped him from Africa.

I casually skimmed through that bit and the two subsequent paragraphs in light of the actual wording of the regulation having been quoted and distracted by the emphasis on the correct applicability of article 7 (as well as juicy extra info on the UAE and Australian proposals previously mentioned by Yann Hafner), somehow completely misreading the gist of it and missing what is quite the clanger. :o


It is understood that Article 6 of the Fifa statutes relates to players who were born with dual nationality, giving them the ability to represent more than one national association at international level.

For instance, a player born in the Faroe Islands has Danish nationality, and may choose to represent either Denmark or the Faroe Islands in international football matches.

Oceania-born footballing legend Christian Karembeu is an example of the rule in action. Born in New Caledonia, Karembeu represented France in international football due to having French citizenship, rather than the island nation.

A player born in the Faroes (there is no such thing as Faroese nationality) can only represent Denmark if he shares a territorial connection with Denmark by virtue of birth of parents/grandparents in Denmark or having resided there for two years. He isn't just automatically eligible by virtue of being Faroese (born in the Faroes) or because the Faroese also happen to share Danish nationality.

That would be to suggest that a player born in one of England, NI, Scotland or Wales would be eligible to play for any of the other three besides the territory in which he was born simply on account of his birth in the UK/British citizenship, which is a major misinterpretation.

Also, Christian Karembeu first played for France in 1992, long before the introduction of the current article 6 and the significant rule changes post-2004. The rule under which he was eligible to play for France then on account of his French nationality read:


"Any player who is a naturalised citizen of a country in virtue of that country’s laws shall be eligible to play for a national or representative team of that country."

To the best of my knowledge, there was no rule in place at the time (other than an internal agreement amongst the British associations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_eligibility_rules#Home_nations_agreement) or unwritten convention) that obstructed players of a nationality shared by one or more teams from choosing to play for any of those teams sharing that nationality.

Karembeu moved to France at the age of 17 in 1988 and first played for France in 1992, so would have been eligible on account of residence anyway had the current rules been in place then and had article 6 actually applied to him then. Also, New Caledonia were only admitted to FIFA in 2004. I'm not sure it would even be fair to assume that article 6 would apply to Karembeu were he to appear on the scene today. French nationality is shared by only two teams, according to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_eligibility_rules#Nations_that_share_a_common _nationality); France and Tahiti. Meanwhile, New Caledonia has had separate citizenship since 1999 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_departments_and_territories_of_France#Spe cial_collectivity). Isn't it therefore more correct to say that article 7 would have applied to Karembeu were the current rules in place back in the early '90s along with the present situation of distinct nationality? Obviously, if France and New Caledonia still shared a common nationality nowadays, article 6 would act as the distinguisher in order to discern who was and who was not eligible to play for the teams of the two respective territories.

If anyone wants an example of the rule in action, they need look no further than any player who plays for one of the four British associations.

Edit: Just checking back through my emails/old posts and I see Yann Hafner informed me that New Caledonia are actually one of the teams that share French nationality even though they are missing from the list I linked to above (along with Gibraltar). That would appear to conflict with the information in another link I included above which suggested that New Caledonia had a distinct citizenship since 1999, however. Either way, I don't think it would be correct or appropriate to describe Christian Karembeu's international career as being an example of the rule in action.

[geysir]

A player born in the Faroes (there is no such thing as Faroese nationality) can only represent Denmark if he shares a territorial connection with Denmark by virtue of birth of parents/grandparents in Denmark or having resided there for two years. He isn't just automatically eligible by virtue of being Faroese (born in the Faroes) or because the Faroese also happen to share Danish nationality.

That would be to suggest that a player born in one of England, NI, Scotland or Wales would be eligible to play for any of the other three besides the territory in which he was born simply on account of his birth in the UK/British citizenship, which is a major misinterpretation.
Under article 5, a player born in the UK (a UK citizen) would be fully entitled to declare for any of the 4 UK associations.
That's why we have article 6, to set the criteria for situations like the single UK citizenship.

Likewise a player born in the Faroes would be entitled to declare for Denmark under article 5.


Ben Strong "It is understood that Article 6 of the Fifa statutes relates to players who were born with dual nationality, giving them the ability to represent more than one national association at international level."

Ben has a problem understanding the term 'single nationality'
Article 6 is strictly about players whose single nationality qualifies them for more than one association.
A player who is born a dual national, qualifies for both countries under article 5.
Except when he is born in NI, then he qualifies for one under article 5 and the other under article 6 :)

Our lad Wynne, acquired his 2nd nationality after the age of 18, therefore the NZF were required to prove Wynne's eligibility under the terms of article 7 to FIFA, by pointing that he had been resident in NZ since the age of 14. Then FIFA would have dispensed their rubber stamp.

[DannyInvincible]

I was in touch with Ben Strang through Twitter about Wynne and advised him to get in touch with Yann. Sure enough, he did and has straightened things out a bit, although Yann tells me it still features a few mistakes: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/70397772/oly-whites-defender-deklan-wynne-ineligible--fifa-eligibility-expert

I asked Yann myself what he made of the idea that Jimmy McGeough would have had to seek approbation from FIFA/the IFA in order to play for the FAI in 1969 - Jimmy was clear it was the FAI who had asked him to seek their permission when I spoke to him - and I showed Yann the 1969 'Goal' cutting I posted earlier in the thread (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1823188&viewfull=1#post1823188) mentioning that dual nationals were free to play for Ireland after it was decided they were not required by the associations of their birth countries. Yann said he had no knowledge of any legal grounds for such a condition. Of course, that doesn't completely rule out the possibility that legal grounds did exist, and Yann admits this whilst stating that processes were less formal in those days, so it might well have been custom rather than rule.

I suggested that perhaps it was a case of the FAI being subservient and unwilling to rock the boat. (Is that likely? What would the FAI's motive be in doing that though and how would they have stood to benefit exactly?) Yann said "it is possible the FAI might have been deferential to the other associations (the four British association had their one representative at FIFA exco)". Ultimately though, we have no solid answer on that matter yet. I have been busy of late with various things, but I'm going to try and get back in touch with Peter Sherrard of the FAI within the next fortnight or so.

[DannyInvincible]

Absolute shambles in NZ: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11488757


...

The Herald have uncovered 16 players who have represented the All Whites, New Zealand under-17s, New Zealand under-20s and New Zealand under-23s within the past year who also appear to fall short of Article 7 of Fifa's eligibility requirements.

New Zealand's under-23 football team were forced to forfeit their Olympic qualifying tournament in Papua New Guinea this month after All Whites defender Deklan Wynne fell short of these requirements.

New Zealand Football are appealing OFC's decision but if NZF lose the case, there could be further sanctions for systemically breaking the rules.

"OFC is working with its disciplinary committee and seeking advice from Fifa for the appropriate process to follow - and to rule on who has jurisdiction - into the possible ineligible players that represented NZ recently at the OFC Under 17 World Cup qualifying tournament in American Samoa," said Nicholas.

Three New Zealand players that took part in the OFC Under 17 Championship were born in the UK and one in Papua New Guinea. Without Kiwi ancestry, these players would be ineligible under Fifa's rules.

The fresh complaint appears to hinge on the Wynne appeal, and it's likely no action will be taken on it until that process is complete.

But if Wynne, along with other players from the All Whites, under-23s, under-20s and under-17s, are found to have broken Fifa's rules, the game's governing body could crack down hard on NZF.

Fifa have precedent for ruling with an iron fist on ineligibility laws. In 1988 Mexico were found guilty of using overage players in an under-20 tournament, and the federation was subsequently banned from all international competition, senior and underage, for two years.

The New Zealand under-17's are due to play the World Cup in Chile in October.

NZF said they are not in a position to comment on individual or team cases while their legal process is on-going.

[tetsujin1979]

Interesting discussion on Monday's Second Captains Football podcast with a Nigerian journalist about Jordan Ibe possibly declaring for Nigeria, along with other English-born players of Nigerian descent: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/second-captains

[Olé Olé]

Interesting discussion on Monday's Second Captains Football podcast with a Nigerian journalist about Jordan Ibe possibly declaring for Nigeria, along with other English-born players of Nigerian descent: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/second-captains

Had a listen to that there. The Nigerian journalist was, seemingly, eager to infer that the Nigerian manager (Sunday Oliseh, Championship manager great) is highlighting to the likes of Ibe that there is a great career benefit to playing with Nigeria, as opposed to England. I was disappointed, though, that the journalist kept referring to Victor Moses in the same breath as Shola Ameobi. To be fair, I think Moses was quicker to play for Nigeria (and was a better talent than Ameobi when he made the decision). From what I gathered reading up on Moses and Ameobi's situations, Moses declaring for Nigeria would be like Clark switching when he did or Grealish sticking with us. On the other hand, Ameobi's situation would be slightly more akin to Mark Noble joining our ranks, maybe without the public remonstrations of ambivalence though.

[geysir]

Absolute shambles in NZ: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11488757
FIFA could open up an office in NZ so they can rubber stamp all these exemption applications. One u17 has been in NZ since the age of 3.
The eligibility statute is solely there to control exploitation of children/minors and not regular migrants.
NZF need an Albert Reynolds to negotiate a deal.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Dominic Ball has moved to Rangers.

Presumably, Michael O'Neill has no problem with his switching to England having previously represented NI at underage level.

[DannyInvincible]

Nothing massively revelationary here, but I'd been looking at some stuff written by Alan Bairner (he's written a lot about identity in sport as the professor of sport and social theory at Loughborough University), and came across the passage I've quoted below in this: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume5/number1/bairner/bairner.pdf


The complex nature of the relationship between sport, nationality and national identity in Northern Ireland became very apparent when, in 2006, football’s international governing body, Féderation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) decided that international players should hold ‘the passport of the national association they are seeking to represent in order to allow the match commissioner to verify their eligibility’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/5016872.stm). According to FIFA, the fact that a player held an Irish Republic passport (which had previously been accepted practice) did not ‘demonstrate conclusively that he or she is eligible to play for Northern Ireland’. This policy shift was criticised by the government of the Irish Republic and also by the main nationalist parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. The IFA’s chief executive, Howard Wells, described FIFA’s stance as ‘unfortunate’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5093924.stm).

In large part, this issue arose because of the unique position held by England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales within the context of international football - that is as football nations without corresponding states. It was rendered more problematic in this specific case by long-standing debates about the status of Northern Ireland together with the more recent provisions of the Good Friday Agreement which recognise that all people born in Northern Ireland can opt for British or Irish citizenship (Neuheiser and Wolff, 2002).

As a direct consequence of pressure from various different quarters, a compromise has now been reached. Northern Ireland players are now permitted to hold either a British or an Irish passport although, in addition, they are obliged to sign ‘a declaration of eligibility’. Conversely, a player who holds only a British passport is deemed ineligible to play for the Republic of Ireland.

I think we'd been aware that IFA players in possession of Irish passports only were exempted from the ordinary eligibility verification principle so long as the IFA otherwise ascertained and verified their eligibility/satisfaction of at least one of the article 6 criteria, but Bairner talks about NI players having to sign a "declaration of eligibility" as well as possessing either a British or an Irish passport (or is it just the Irish passport holders who have to sign this declaration?), which is something of which I was unaware. I wasn't sure what the checking process would have been - I would have assumed a birth cert would have been the next go-to document if the passport wasn't conclusive (then again, passports do indicate place of birth anyway) - but is a mere declaration from a player concerned enough, so long as he also possesses one of the passports? I'd have thought there would have been a need to investigate some further documents, on the part of the IFA at least?

Just another thing, the original logic for the policy shift (before being reversed in the IFA's case) was purportedly because an Irish passport did not "demonstrate conclusively that [a player] is eligible to play for Northern Ireland"; however, a British passport would not have served to do this either. Perhaps this declaration is a standard verification process for all of the British associations then in that a British passport alone obviously cannot be conclusive proof of eligibility to play for one of those associations?

[BonnieShels]

Nothing massively revelationary here, but I'd been looking at some stuff written by Alan Bairner (he's written a lot about identity in sport as the professor of sport and social theory at Loughborough University), and came across the passage I've quoted below in this: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume5/number1/bairner/bairner.pdf



I think we'd been aware that IFA players in possession of Irish passports only were exempted from the ordinary eligibility verification principle so long as the IFA otherwise ascertained and verified their eligibility/satisfaction of at least one of the article 6 criteria, but Bairner talks about NI players having to sign a "declaration of eligibility" as well as possessing either a British or an Irish passport (or is it just the Irish passport holders who have to sign this declaration?), which is something of which I was unaware. I wasn't sure what the checking process would have been - I would have assumed a birth cert would have been the next go-to document if the passport wasn't conclusive (then again, passports do indicate place of birth anyway) - but is a mere declaration from a player concerned enough, so long as he also possesses one of the passports? I'd have thought there would have been a need to investigate some further documents, on the part of the IFA at least?

Just another thing, the original logic for the policy shift (before being reversed in the IFA's case) was purportedly because an Irish passport did not "demonstrate conclusively that [a player] is eligible to play for Northern Ireland"; however, a British passport would not have served to do this either. Perhaps this declaration is a standard verification process for all of the British associations then in that a British passport alone obviously cannot be conclusive proof of eligibility to play for one of those associations?

But at least with a UK Passport you know that there is a further agreement in place between the FAW, SFA, IFA and FA to ensure eligibility.

Asking Irish passport solely holders to sign a form is a tad odd though.

[DeLorean]

Just putting it out there, any chance this thread (http://foot.ie/threads/148358-Jack-Grealish?highlight=jack+grealish) could be reopened. With recent developments (on foot.ie) it seems unlikely that the discussion will get out of hand and there's bound to be plenty of reports of twists and turns to discuss in the near future, which is the purpose of a football forum.

The Irish Sun reckons he'd have to wait a while (http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/sport/irishfootball/6602392/Jack-is-fine.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-IrishSunSport-_-20150823-_-SunIESoccer-_-226387407) to play for England, which they seem to see as a major factor. I really can't see that playing any part in the decision making process, or at least it shouldn't. Anyway it is The Sun I suppose. Are they at least correct in what they're reporting?

Edit- Apologies if I seem impatient, I just noticed that the discussion was only banned until September which is only a few days away. I had it in my head that it was banned until there was a decision made. Either way, I still think it could be reopened.

[tetsujin1979]

sorry, the thread will remain locked, and any discussion of Grealish is still banned, until the situation is clarified from either the FAI, Grealish himself, or the FA

[DannyInvincible]

The Irish Sun reckons he'd have to wait a while (http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/sport/irishfootball/6602392/Jack-is-fine.html?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-IrishSunSport-_-20150823-_-SunIESoccer-_-226387407) to play for England, which they seem to see as a major factor. I really can't see that playing any part in the decision making process, or at least it shouldn't. Anyway it is The Sun I suppose. Are they at least correct in what they're reporting?

I'm not sure that would have any real bearing on what will be a long-term decision either (especially as the likelihood is we won't be qualifying for Euro 2016 anyway, save for a large dollop of good fortune in the group's remaining fixtures). They are correct in respect of the lengthy administrative process post-switch request, however. Practically, it would rule any switching player out of being able to play for the receiving/benefiting association for a few months.

Hadn't been aware that Jon Macken is one of the select few players deemed to have made a formal switch of association to the FAI since 2003.

[DannyInvincible]

This thread is kind of an archive for discussion on (northern) Irish identity matters, so I'll put it here; it's a very good piece by a lad from Derry on northerners supporting Ireland: http://www.sportsjoe.ie/football/being-from-the-north-and-supporting-the-republic-isnt-a-choice-its-just-who-you-are/38799


There seems to be a lack of understanding about Irish people north of the border.

We didn't just suddenly choose to support the Republic over Northern Ireland because they had a better football team. Barely.

We didn't choose to support the Republic for any political reasons - well, most of us anyway.

And, do you know what, it's not even out of any nationalism or statement of Irishness or any of that.

It's a simple case of you're born into a community and this is who you are. You grow up in this world. You support Ireland. And Northern Ireland is just the other team. You weren't even given a choice about them.

Those from the six counties are either Irish or Northern Irish. They're one or the other by birth. So they grow up accordingly.

I don't think I've ever sat and watched a full Northern Ireland match.

That's not to make a statement, it's not some sort of political boycott and it's definitely not because I don't like them. I simply don't care.

Do I want to see Northern Ireland do well? I don't know. I don't care enough.

Sure, I don't mind seeing them getting on alright but as much as I don't mind seeing Wales have a bit of relative success too. As long as Ireland has their house in order, the rest can do what they like.

If the north went to the Euros and Ireland didn't, I couldn't possibly take any real interest or joy from pretending to follow Michael O'Neill's men. There's no history there for me or my family of supporting Northern Ireland. There's no affiliation there with the country whatsoever.

Well worth a read.

[Olé Olé]

This thread is kind of an archive for discussion on (northern) Irish identity matters, so I'll put it here; it's a very good piece by a lad from Derry on northerners supporting Ireland: http://www.sportsjoe.ie/football/being-from-the-north-and-supporting-the-republic-isnt-a-choice-its-just-who-you-are/38799



Well worth a read.

Makes you wonder about the players that play for NI even though they have admitted to supporting the Republic (Niall McGinn, the myriad of players to tweet support for Ireland over the years. I'm sure there are more that haven't admitted it in public). There must be quite a few over the year who haven't taken the plunge that McClean and Duffy have taken.

[Gather round]

Can't agree about yer mate's worthiness, DI. It's a lame mirror image of NI fans gurning about players emigrating South ;)


We didn't just suddenly choose to support the Republic over Northern Ireland because they had a better football team. Barely

You personally didn't ever support NI, sure, but many others did. Particularly in the 1980s, even though sectarian tension and violence was worse then.


t's a simple case of you're born into a community and this is who you are. You grow up in this world. You support Ireland. And Northern Ireland is just the other team. You weren't even given a choice about them

It isn't. You don't slavishly have to parrot everything everyone in your community does. Many don't. Everyone has a choice.


Those from the six counties are either Irish or Northern Irish. They're one or the other by birth. So they grow up accordingly

I'm both, like plenty of others. Who are you to pre-determine anyone else's identity?


don't think I've ever sat and watched a full Northern Ireland match

Give it a try ;)

I mean, this may be a high point...


Makes you wonder about the players that play for NI even though they have admitted to supporting the Republic (Niall McGinn, the myriad of players to tweet support for Ireland over the years. I'm sure there are more that haven't admitted it in public)

Plenty of internationals support teams other than those they played for. If they grew up elsewhere and have never lived in the country, that's what you'd expect.

[geysir]

This thread is kind of an archive for discussion on (northern) Irish identity matters, so I'll put it here; it's a very good piece by a lad from Derry on northerners supporting Ireland: http://www.sportsjoe.ie/football/being-from-the-north-and-supporting-the-republic-isnt-a-choice-its-just-who-you-are/38799

Well worth a read.
It's a good read and well done to him for putting it down in public,
he refers to those with NI identity, I take it he understands the NI identity to be mainly pro unionist, NI identity = northern irish unionist identity. That the default Northern irish identity is mono cultural, pro union, pro UK, along with union flag and gstq as anthem and varying degrees of hostility to nationalist culture, identity and aspirations.

[DannyInvincible]

It isn't. You don't slavishly have to parrot everything everyone in your community does. Many don't. Everyone has a choice.

...

I'm both, like plenty of others. Who are you to pre-determine anyone else's identity?

I would have guessed he's referring to the independent Irish national identity, which is an identity with which you do not identify, without wishing to "pre-determine" anything! ;) If I'm not mistaken, you identify as Northern Irish and Irish, but your version of the latter is a regional or sub-national British one, no?

And I don't think he is trying to pre-determine or enforce identity upon anyone, nor is he suggesting that people must slavishly parrot their communal predecessors. I more took him to be saying that the society or cultural environment in which you find yourself generally determines your national and cultural inclinations; thus, your society or community naturally tends to pre-determine (or it, at least, strongly influences) your identity. If you're born into a French-identifying household, for example, you'll probably identify as French, not out of any conscious decision, but because that's now you were born, raised and have always felt; you just are French. If you're born into a German-identifying household, you'll probably identify as German for the same reasons. That isn't me pre-determining anyone's identity; it's just acknowledging historical and socio-cultural reality and the concept of familial inheritance of identity and tradition.

[DannyInvincible]

It's a good read and well done to him for putting it down in public,
he refers to those with NI identity, I take it he understands the NI identity to be mainly pro unionist, NI identity = northern irish unionist identity. That the default Northern irish identity is mono cultural, pro union, pro UK, along with union flag and gstq as anthem and varying degrees of hostility to nationalist culture, identity and aspirations.

You might well have seen it, but I'd written something along similar lines a while back actually after Trevor Ringland expressed some things about northern nationalists without any sense of self-awareness whatsoever: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/north-men-south-men-comrades-all-part-two/


...

I applaud Ringland, a declared unionist, for his positive intentions and reconciliation work, but he fundamentally misunderstands the broad nationalist community if he thinks that those who support or declare for the FAI are doing so to purposefully and specifically reject a relationship with himself, his ideas and others like him. The reality of the situation, rather, is that Irish nationalists incline or orientate towards a different cultural beacon to the one Ringland subscribes and they channel their identity through that in the same way that Ringland channels his through the idea of a British Northern Ireland. The fortunes of the Northern Ireland football team are about as culturally relevant to many Irish nationalists as the fortunes of, say, the English, Scottish or Welsh football teams. For most nationalists, identification and affiliation is not about being spitefully anti-Northern Irish or anti-British, nor is it about being culturally against for what Ringland stands. Ringland must realise that not everything nationalists in the north do and think is relative to or in reaction to unionism. The reality is more straightforward than that. Nationalists’ lack of identification with Northern Ireland is not necessarily even a conscious decision on their parts; the alien idea of supporting Northern Ireland might simply never have crossed their minds. For most nationalists, their affiliation “elsewhere” is about celebrating themselves, their own identity and being pro-Irish, for want of a better description; it is about defining and expressing themselves on their own independent terms, which can be purely benign, non-antagonistic and celebratory. Most nationalists can get along just fine with those from different walks of life whilst also celebrating their own identity. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

...

[geysir]

Can't agree about yer mate's worthiness, DI. It's a lame mirror image of NI fans gurning about players emigrating South ;)



You personally didn't ever support NI, sure, but many others did. Particularly in the 1980s, even though sectarian tension and violence was worse then.



It isn't. You don't slavishly have to parrot everything everyone in your community does. Many don't. Everyone has a choice.



I'm both, like plenty of others. Who are you to pre-determine anyone else's identity?



Give it a try ;)

I mean, this may be a high point...



Plenty of internationals support teams other than those they played for. If they grew up elsewhere and have never lived in the country, that's what you'd expect.
I understand that you didn't read the the linked article but chose to comment on selected quotes from the article and from those selected quotes you further snipped quotes in order to comment upon them. And by doing so, you completely removed context which defines much of the meaning of those quotes, in order to facilitate a series of cynical, disparaging and mindbogglingly inaccurate opinions. Your comments are just so predictably biased, narrow minded and ill humoured, GR.

[osarusan]

And I don't think he is trying to pre-determine or enforce identity upon anyone,
Seriously?


The train of thought that 'this is how it is for me, therefore this is how it is for everybody like me' is all over the entire piece.

Along with 'if you are not like me, then this is how it is for you.'

He even (unwittingly) insults a number of our English-born players while he's at it.

[DeLorean]

He's really stressing the 'indifference' he feels towards them, which I find a bit far fetched. It's often said that indifference is the greatest insult, I reckon that's what he's probably going for.

[Wolfman]

Can't agree about yer mate's worthiness, DI. It's a lame mirror image of NI fans gurning about players emigrating South ;)



You personally didn't ever support NI, sure, but many others did. Particularly in the 1980s, even though sectarian tension and violence was worse then.



It isn't. You don't slavishly have to parrot everything everyone in your community does. Many don't. Everyone has a choice.



I'm both, like plenty of others. Who are you to pre-determine anyone else's identity?



Give it a try ;)

I mean, this may be a high point...



Plenty of internationals support teams other than those they played for. If they grew up elsewhere and have never lived in the country, that's what you'd expect.
More paranoid nonsense.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Ha ha, yeap, that's him all over.

Double standards 'are us'.
:eek:

[geysir]

He's really stressing the 'indifference' he feels towards them, which I find a bit far fetched. It's often said that indifference is the greatest insult, I reckon that's what he's probably going for.
I'm indifferent to the NI team, I really don't care about them. I don't care about the English team either, whether they do well or not. It's a state of mind.
It would appear that you are attempting to read Conan's mind and determining that him being indifferent is a far fetched concept, that you don't believe his honesty of expression and you surmise that he must be out to offer an insult by wearing the cloth of indifference. I'd call that interpretation a 'complete fabrication'.

[geysir]

Seriously?


The train of thought that 'this is how it is for me, therefore this is how it is for everybody like me' is all over the entire piece.

Along with 'if you are not like me, then this is how it is for you.'

He even (unwittingly) insults a number of our English-born players while he's at it.
Again we have some fantastic mind readers on board here :)
Exactly where is he trying to predetermine or force his identity onto others?
It reads to me as an account from him and the local community he grew up in.

[DannyInvincible]

Seriously?


The train of thought that 'this is how it is for me, therefore this is how it is for everybody like me' is all over the entire piece.

Along with 'if you are not like me, then this is how it is for you.'

I think his manner of speaking generally is fair enough, which is different from pre-determining the identity of others. He's trying to explain a broad communal experience/mindset and does acknowledge that he's speaking for "most"/"the vast majority" rather than absolutely everyone. I think the popularity of the piece indicates the truth in it for most.


He even (unwittingly) insults a number of our English-born players while he's at it.

This bit?: "Would I play for the north? If I knew my chances of playing for the Republic were completely finished, yes. I'd play for the north the same way all those English lads play for the Republic. And there's nothing wrong with that. But I'd only be playing for a team. I wouldn't be playing for my country."

I wouldn't endorse that particular statement, but it's not integral to the general sentiment of the piece.


He's really stressing the 'indifference' he feels towards them, which I find a bit far fetched. It's often said that indifference is the greatest insult, I reckon that's what he's probably going for.

The piece was written to clear up any misunderstanding in terms of why so many northerners support Ireland. I've encountered many people here in England who simply assume that because one might be a northerner that the natural inclination should be towards supporting NI. Many either don't get it or assume it's glory-hunting. Perhaps Conán has also experienced this in the south. Well, he does allude to it actually. It is in that context that the expression of indifference is made towards a team to which others perhaps blindly assume he'd feel attached simply because of where he was born. It is to correct a common but incorrect assumption about northerners who support Ireland. He speaks positively of having lived with a NI fan (I also know he's friends with people from both communities), so I wouldn't say that setting out to insult was one of his intentions. He's entitled to emphasise his Irishness and his distinctness (as well even his indifference towards NI) without it being assumed grounded in bitterness or any intent to insult.

[osarusan]

It reads to me as an account from him and the local community he grew up in.

It would appear that you are trying to read his mind, etc...blah blah blah.