Eligibility Rules, Okay [Archive] - Page 147

DannyInvincible

20/03/2017, 12:39 PM

They were perfectly entitled to play for Northern Ireland at underage level. They exercised their right to do so, experience it, learn from it, benefit from it and ultimately when and if they decide they'd rather play for the team down the road -that's their right too.

It's also worth remembering that the IFA have been more than happy to continue training and selecting players who have already made it explicitly clear to them that their ultimate ambition is to represent the FAI: http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1563742&viewfull=1#post1563742

The IFA are happy to continue training and selecting such players because they stand to benefit from these players' participation in their teams and may even end up with these players opting to commit to the association down the line as that desired call from the FAI may never emerge for the player. So, it's not a case of "all take" by the players concerned. The IFA benefit from these "transactions" too.

Besides, who's funding the IFA, their coaching and the facilities they use? A significant portion of their funding is public money; a considerable amount of that comes from the nationalist community who support Ireland and who regard players like Duffy and McClean as local/community heroes.

Also, I have great time for Brian Kerr but he's somewhat forked tongued on this issue and possibly selective in his memory too -he described the FAI (of whom I'm scarcely a fan) as 'predatory' in their pursuit of McClean when it transpires McClean initiated contact with the FAI via Niall Quinn and Sunderland. Yet, and perhaps one of the Northern Ireland lads on here can add to, confirm or rebuff this, - there were more than one or two on OWC a few years back asserting that Kerr -acting on what information or initiative I don't know, telephoned the as yet uncapped Chris Baird to invite him to join up with our squad only for Baird to say 'No thanks, I'm happy where I am'.

I read that story myself about Baird. EalingGreen used to bring it up. I only ever read about it on this forum and on OWC; never saw it published anywhere else. That's not necessarily to say it wasn't true.

For what it's worth, Kerr also selected northerners Henry McStay and Ger Crossley (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/fai-s-policy-of-recruiting-ni-players-is-wrong-1.630456) in his under-age teams. He also had early discussions with Darron Gibson about switching.

He did turn Michael McGovern away (http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/euro-2016/brian-kerr-ireland-can-be-kings-of-lyon-but-only-if-france-dont-show-up-34831865.html), mind, and advised him to stick with the IFA as Shay, Dean Kiely, Wayne Henderson, Brian Murphy and Joe Murphy would all have been ahead of McGovern in the goalkeeping pecking order at the time, according to Kerr.

I first came across Michael McGovern 14 years ago, long before he was a European Championship hero for Northern Ireland, back in the day when I was managing the Irish youth team.

He was selected for an underage squad, had showed some promise, and seemed interested in declaring for us.

Yet, at the time, there were plenty of goalkeepers ahead of him in the queue.

Shay Given was still young and was our No 1. Dean Kiely was playing Premier League football with Charlton and our youth set-up had produced some fine goalkeepers around that era - Brian Murphy, Wayne Henderson, Joe Murphy.

So I felt I had to be honest, and even though Michael was a smiley, pleasant fella, the sort I loved having around the squad, I thought it was right to tell him that if he harboured ambitions to play international football, the reality was that he would stand a better chance with Northern Ireland than us.

I'm not accusing Kerr of anything other than hypocracy there. As the Ireland manager his primary duty was to maximise the player pool available to the FAI. He broke no rule I know of by calling Baird -if indeed he did contact him.

I like Kerr myself and have a great deal of respect for him, but his denunciations in recent years of the FAI's facilitation of northerners are totally hypocritical considering his own managerial actions back in the day. I'm not saying Kerr was wrong in selecting northern players either - he wasn't - just that he's a hypocrite if he's going to use it as a stick with which to beat the FAI now.

TheOneWhoKnocks

20/03/2017, 2:00 PM

I stand corrected.

It might be worth reading through the thread before diving in with both feet.

The English born and bred comments sounds like you're suggested McClean is not Irish born and bred which is hugely insulting to a huge number of Irish people, including a lot of posters on here.

The second one about southern players switching. Again, read the thread, Irish players are not eligible for Northern Ireland unless they are dual nationals and that's too simple an explanation.
.

I never said they weren't baseless rumours. Could a person from the South of Ireland with Northern Irish grandparentage not be eligible for the Northern Ireland national team, joedenilson?

I respect James McClean's reasons for declaring for us and anyone can see some in NI's camp are wilfully ignorant of them, but he undermines his own cause when he says he used them as a stepping stone in his own career and suggests that he waited until his stock was high to switch to ROI.

Closed Account

20/03/2017, 2:16 PM

I never said they weren't baseless rumours. Could a person from the South of Ireland with Northern Irish grandparentage not be eligible for the Northern Ireland national team, joedenilson?

I respect James McClean's reasons for declaring for us and anyone can see some in NI's camp are wilfully ignorant of them, but he undermines his own cause when he says he used them as a stepping stone in his own career and suggests that he waited until his stock was high to switch to ROI.
Nice dodge. If you can't see the distinction between born and bred Irishmen like McClean playing for Ireland and someone from the 26 counties with a Northern Irish grandparent, I'll just leave it, I thought you were on a deliberate wind up. I never mentioned anything about McClean being a PR nightmare, that fact is well known.

tetsujin1979

20/03/2017, 2:21 PM

I never said they weren't baseless rumours. Could a person from the South of Ireland with Northern Irish grandparentage not be eligible for the Northern Ireland national team, joedenilson?

I respect James McClean's reasons for declaring for us and anyone can see some in NI's camp are wilfully ignorant of them, but he undermines his own cause when he says he used them as a stepping stone in his own career and suggests that he waited until his stock was high to switch to ROI.
McClean pulled out of the Northern Ireland squad to play the Faroes in July 2011, when he was still with Derry City.

TheOneWhoKnocks

20/03/2017, 2:23 PM

Nice dodge. If you can't see the distinction between born and bred Irishmen like McClean playing for Ireland and someone from the 26 counties with a Northern Irish grandparent, I'll just leave it, I thought you were on a deliberate wind up. I never mentioned anything about McClean being a PR nightmare, that fact is well known.

So it is possible for someone from ROI to declare for NI and I wasn't imagining things? Okay.

I'm not on a wind up. Of course I can see the distinction between someone like McClean and Grealish. It's night and day. I'm simply trying to understand things from their (NI) perspective. It isn't a black and white issue. There are grey areas. That is all.

osarusan

20/03/2017, 2:26 PM

Closed Account

20/03/2017, 3:00 PM

What is the distinction?
McClean is eligible for both NI and ROI from birth.
A person from 26 counties with NI grandparent is eligible for ROI from birth. They can apply for British Citizenship in order to play for NI but it's complicated. They are not automatically dual nationals in respect of FIFA.

Anyway, that wasn't my main issue. I was triggered by the born and bred comment but TOWK has since cleared up that it wasn't his intention to imply McClean wasn't born and bred.

BonnieShels

20/03/2017, 8:37 PM

I'm just saying I completely understand why Northern Ireland fans would be annoyed about the situation.

I'm delighted that players the caliber of Duffy and McClean declared for us but if the shoe was on the other foot..

You have to see both sides of the story.

I can't imagine how annoyed I would be if I was a NI fan when McClean made his "stepping stone" comment.

The closest thing you could compare it to is Grealish using ROI as a stepping stone, which he obviously did.

But at least Grealish was English born and bred, and had the common sense and PR savvy not to make such questionable comments in a public arena.

We don't have to see both sides of the story the way you seem to think. Are you aware of how hypocritical the IFA have been in there attitudes towards Irish-born players who choose to declare for their country over the decades? This debate has gone on and on and it's always the IFA, their manager, the OWC or their supporters clubs having a moan about our "poaching".

It's a corollary of Unionism and its inherent defensiveness and hypocrisy. And your consistent "let's all get along" approach is profoundly irritating and patronising.

There are 1.8m people living in Fermanagh, Antrim, Tyrone, Derry, Armagh and Down, and only about 900,000 really have any real cultural attachment to the IFA's team. These players that we "poach" generally have little cultural interest in playing for the IFA and should they line out for them like say Niall McGinn did, it has been pragmatic and there's no need to over-egg the decision. The IFA manager doesn't have to pick them if he feels that their commitment isn't 100%.

TheOneWhoKnocks

21/03/2017, 9:50 AM

The same cultural faults you could level at Northern Irish unionists are ones inherent in us.

Irishness the way someone like James McClean sees it as different to the way someone like Alan Maybury, Richard Sadlier or Brian Kerr would see it.

Alan Maybury has given interviews about the abuse he got for wearing a Rangers tracksuit growing up in Dublin and so did Richard Sadlier. Less than 20 years ago baboons in Lansdowne Road were booing players who played for Rangers. Bill O'Herlihy had to be reprimanded for making embarrassing comments about badminton "being a Protestant sport" to the entire country on our national broadcaster after Chloe Magee won a match several years ago.

The tricolour is green, white and orange for a reason.

The bottom line is McClean and Hale deserve to be left alone after making their reasons for switching vehemently clear, even lads like O'Kane for whom nationalistic background didn't play a part, but again, I can see their (NI)'s perspective.

They're a small nation and they've spent time and resources developing players only to see them switch.

And I'm open to correction, Bonnie, but haven't several players switched back to NI from ROI which would undermine things a little bit from our perspective?

Anyway, I'm glad the Hale's switched and hope they make an impact even marginally close to a Robbie Keane.

CraftyToePoke

21/03/2017, 10:15 AM

Was Kerrs father of an Orange disposition ?

BonnieShels

21/03/2017, 11:01 AM

The same cultural faults you could level at Northern Irish unionists are ones inherent in us.

Such as?

I lay on my "inherent bigotry" really thickly. It's so bloody obvious for all to see. :rolleyes:

Irishness the way someone like James McClean sees it as different to the way someone like Alan Maybury, Richard Sadlier or Brian Kerr would see it.

What are you on about?

I have no issue with anyone's expression of their Irishness (no matter how that may be demonstrated) and if you had even the most cursory knowledge of me or my discussions in here you would know not to even attempt to drive down this road.

Alan Maybury has given interviews about the abuse he got for wearing a Rangers tracksuit growing up in Dublin and so did Richard Sadlier.

Supporting Rangers or wearing their gear is nothing to do with cultural expression in this context I would bet... and I hardly think it made much of a difference to him when it came to playing for Ireland. It wasn't like Alan Kernaghan making a decision...

I knew a lad in my class like Sadlier who "supported" Rangers. AND tbh he was mostly on a WUM. I grew up despising Celtic for the sectarian crap that followed them around. Does that equate to the same thing?
I honestly can't believe you are equating to Dublin-born Rangers "supporting" guys with anything remotely concerning the IFA attitude and their well trodden issue with Irish-born players wanting to play for their national team, ie the FAI representative team.

Less than 20 years ago baboons in Lansdowne Road were booing players who played for Rangers.

So? They also played for the opposition. Those days are so long ago and so unbelievably in the past it's beyond belief you are bringing it up as an example of nationalist attitudes to Unionists/IFA.

Less than 20 years ago Omagh happened? 21 since Manchester? So?

Bill O'Herlihy had to be reprimanded for making embarrassing comments about badminton "being a Protestant sport" to the entire country on our national broadcaster after Chloe Magee won a match several years ago.

Come off it. Are ya serious? I still refer to garrison games. AS do many others mostly in jest and mostly in recognising the historical nature of sport on this island and how it grew and ebbed and flowed. Badminton and cricket were Protestant sports in my view when I was growing up... didn't stop me playing them mind as a teen and adult. You're a touch sensitive I feel.

The tricolour is green, white and orange for a reason.

Aye, it is. And?

The bottom line is McClean and Hale deserve to be left alone after making their reasons for switching vehemently clear,

They do indeed deserve to be left alone. Who's arguing to the contrary here? The fact is the issues with their choice to play for their team of choice, for whatever reason is not with us on here!

even lads like O'Kane for whom nationalistic background didn't play a part,

But if it did play a part you would have to concede that perhaps it was wrong then? I don't understand your point here.

but again, I can see their (NI)'s perspective.

Your sympathy for the IFA is rather big of you. TBH, I have zero. And I never will.

They're a small nation

A what now?

and they've spent time and resources developing players only to see them switch.

My heart is bleeding. Oh poor wee angels of Donegall Avenue.

You do realise that schoolkids dotted around the Six Counties who may identify with our team might find it difficult to get to play for us at an early age given the logistics of the situation and the fact that we lack jurisdiction for them to train and play with us. I'm sure if we could let them join earlier we would.

Also, playing for NI Schools means nahim!

And I'm open to correction, Bonnie, but haven't several players switched back to NI from ROI which would undermine things a little bit from our perspective?

How does it undermine anything? The FAI have never openly courted players. And always stress that the player makes the first contact given the sensitive nature of the issue at hand.

No one in the IFA or OWC etc should ever complain about the situation yet they constantly cry poor mouth.

I don't agree with our approach as I believe our playing pool is small enough without needlessly limiting ourselves. But we are where we are.

Anyway, I'm glad the Hale's switched and hope they make an impact even marginally close to a Robbie Keane.

Here, here.

Wangball

21/03/2017, 11:13 AM

Alan Maybury has given interviews about the abuse he got for wearing a Rangers tracksuit growing up in Dublin and so did Richard Sadlier.

Go back and read that Richard Sadlier article about being a Rangers "fan", its pure drivel. The first paragraph is like an Alan Partridge cold open.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/footballs-senseless-bigotry-hasnt-gone-away-you-know-26726387.html

DannyInvincible

21/03/2017, 11:22 AM

Was Kerrs father of an Orange disposition ?

Kerr's father, Frank (or Frankie), was a Belfast Catholic who was son of an officer in the British army, although it seems some believed he was a Protestant because he ran the Trinity College boxing club. There's further information here in a 2004 biographical-style piece by Dion Fanning: http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/the-legend-of-frankie-kerr-26216814.html

As far as the Kerr family know, Frankie Kerr's father was a high-ranking officer in the British Army. Ulick [O'Connor] has heard he was a captain, but the Kerrs have seen the pictures, noted the servants crowding around in the background and think he was higher. "A captain in the Raj would have had plenty of servants," Ulick says.

A newspaper cutting records the fact that Frankie Kerr fought his first fight in Baghdad. The army took his father to Egypt and India as well as Mesopotamia. It was there, as a child, that Frankie befriended the future prince. The family developed a love of cricket and hockey too - Frankie would later play for Three Rock Rovers in the Leinster League.

Davey, one of Frankie's brothers, used to tell a story. There was a big parade in the barracks in Egypt. It was the British Empire at its most resplendent. The Governor-General may have been there, Generals were certainly in attendance. All was set for a splendid display when a donkey came charging through the barracks, on its back Frankie Kerr. The youngster was ordered to stop by the sergeant-major with the words "Who goes there?" With a swagger detectable in pictures taken more than 60 years ago, the child saluted and said "Frankie Kerr, sir!" before trotting off on his donkey.

The Kerrs returned to England, moving from the Isle of Wight to Aldershot and then back to Belfast. "As far as we know, his father was a Belfast man," Brian says. "Someone came from Scotland before that, and there was a change of religion in the family as well."

"What religion was Frankie?" Ulick asks.

"We were all Catholics."

"I know you were, but was he a Catholic too?"

"He was, yeah. There was a change. I think Mrs Kerr, the grandmother of the father changed and she was from a wealthy family. After that, they didn't want to know about her. He never talked much to us about the past but I knew he was never happy. He didn't want to go back to Belfast. He came here as a young man and I think he was annoyed about the whole business and the madness that went on. My eldest brother Frankie says they went up for his own father's funeral and they came back the same night."

TheOneWhoKnocks

21/03/2017, 11:23 AM

Was Kerrs father of an Orange disposition ?

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/ireland-manager-kerr-confesses-to-childhood-leaning-to-rangers-1-1292555

He has connections to Northern Ireland through family.

Responding to the bigotry against Arveladze 14 years ago:

Kerr is doing his best to make sure it doesn’t happen on Tuesday week. "I hope that stuff fades away, I really do. I’d like there to be none of that. It’s something that ****es me off. My father and mother were from Belfast and they would have socialised in a mixed environment."

He was open to managing Northern Ireland a few years ago but an offer never materialised.

DannyInvincible

22/03/2017, 1:09 AM

In case anyone missed Paddy McEleney's latest wonder-goal against St. Pat's last weekend, here's a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6l5MGE83ZU

Majestic.

DeLorean

28/03/2017, 1:16 PM

Danny won't like Danny for this: F365 (http://www.football365.com/news/mediawatch-everton-have-won-more-trophies-than-man-united)

Cop out

On Tuesday morning, TalkSPORT asked famously sensitive cultural expert Danny Mills to pass comment on Wilfried Zaha’s decision to play for Ivory Coast, his country of birth, over England.

Firstly, here is what Zaha said when making his decision:

“It is rewarding first because I am proud to play for my country, then because the Ivoirian selection has quality players and it has always been a pool of talent. I left for England as a child and I did not return. So I did all my classes in my adopted country and it was the most normal thing in the world that I played for the English youth selections. But for the past four years, I have had ample time to analyse the situation and to take into account the offers of the Ivorian federation. So I made the right choice and I do not regret it.”

Now to Mills for his typically nuanced take. He knows all about the difficulties and deliberations of Zaha’s decision you see, because he was born in Norwich and played for England:

“Ultimately he’s taken the easier option and thought ‘Well, I might get a few more caps and I might get to play in a few more tournaments because my chances with England are probably going to be limited. I probably done 30-odd squads and never got any game time; sat in the stands, sat on the bench. But you still turned up every single time in the hope that you might get a chance and take it.”

‘Ultimately’, Danny, you haven’t got a clue what Zaha was thinking or his reasons for choosing his country of birth, and thus projecting your opinion onto him is, at best, mildly offensive.

BonnieShels

28/03/2017, 1:25 PM

Danny won't like Danny for this: F365 (http://www.football365.com/news/mediawatch-everton-have-won-more-trophies-than-man-united)

It got worse:

Still, it could be worse…
‘Gareth Southgate believes Wilfried Zaha never possessed the inner fight to play for England’ – Sami Mokbel, Daily Mail.

‘Gareth Southgate says Wilfried Zaha did not have the passion to play for England’ – Neil Ashton, The Sun.

‘Wilfried Zaha has been accused of trying to hold England to ransom’ – John Cross, Daily Mirror. He describes Southgate as ‘angry’.

Firstly, Southgate took specific care during his press conference not to say exactly what Mokbel and Ashton claim he ‘believes’ and ‘says’. He was merely passing comment on not wanting to persuade potentially eligible footballers that they should declare for England, leaving that decision with the players themselves.

Secondly, the first two introductions above suggest that Southgate was intimating that playing for England is somehow above playing for Ivory Coast, as if there is a certain level of ‘passion’ or ‘inner fight’ required for England and that anyone failing to match that level is more fit for an alternative nation. Again, Southgate did nothing of the sort.

Thirdly, and not for the first time, Mediawatch does not know where to start with Cross. Southgate made no such accusation, and was not angry. It’s just absolute codswallop designed to stir up controversy where none exists.

http://www.football365.com/news/mediawatch-everton-have-won-more-trophies-than-man-united

BonnieShels

30/03/2017, 12:38 PM

Olé Olé

30/03/2017, 3:35 PM

DannyInvincible

31/03/2017, 7:15 AM

Danny won't like Danny for this: F365 (http://www.football365.com/news/mediawatch-everton-have-won-more-trophies-than-man-united)

I feel the spirit of the following piece, which appears to have been written in response to Danny Mills' ignorance, is very much relevant to discussions we've had about ourselves and players eligible to play for us in this thread and the 'Potentially eligible players' (http://foot.ie/threads/119079-Potentially-eligible-players-thread) thread; 'Wilfried Zaha and Alex Iwobi deserve credit for turning down England careers — not condemnation': http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/wilfried-zaha-alex-iwobi-england-careers-danny-mills-comments-a7658881.html

...

The point of international football is not the money, especially for players on Premier League salaries. But the fact is that being an England international is a commercial dream. Marketers of football boots, fizzy drinks, video games or whatever else would always want to have an England international on their adverts. By choosing not to pursue an England career, you make yourself less marketable and less rich.

<MODEDIT>
Removed extra paragraphs.
Last chance Danny, next time I delete the post

DeLorean

31/03/2017, 7:56 AM

I had to read up on this 'Tebbit Test' he speaks of. Sounds very like the Stutts Gut Test but nobody calls that toxic. :)

Stuttgart88

31/03/2017, 10:24 AM

Don't dare compare me to that psychopathic fascist ****!

DeLorean

31/03/2017, 10:40 AM

Yikes!

tetsujin1979

31/03/2017, 11:21 AM

According to Kilbane on Off The Ball last night - http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/The_Football_Show_on_Off_The_Ball/185761/Zahas_ambition_Dull_Oranje_Spains_future - Noel Whelan would have declared for us, but had been selected for the England underage side and he wasn't given a choice

DannyInvincible

31/03/2017, 10:17 PM

<MODEDIT>
Removed extra paragraphs.
Last change Danny, next time I delete the post

Hmm, the forum rule on content attribution states:

"To protect both yourself and Foot.ie from copyright infringement liability, please do not quote entire articles on the site, just an extract (a few paragraphs); and please provide the source of the article, plus a link to the original. Posts in breach of this rule will be edited and/or deleted."

Having been recently warned to quote small portions of articles when I quote something in future, I was intentionally very selective in what I quoted above and didn't quote anything remotely near the entirety of the Independent's article about Zaha. I quoted a number of paragraphs from different parts of the article that I thought were particularly relevant to earlier discussions on eligibility and association switches. For future reference and the sake of clarity, what exactly is constituted by "an extract" or how many paragraphs exactly is "a few"?

TheOneWhoKnocks

31/03/2017, 10:31 PM

tetsujin1979

31/03/2017, 10:38 PM

Hmm, the forum rule on content attribution states:
"To protect both yourself and Foot.ie from copyright infringement liability, please do not quote entire articles on the site, just an extract (a few paragraphs); and please provide the source of the article, plus a link to the original. Posts in breach of this rule will be edited and/or deleted."

Having been recently warned to quote small portions of articles when I quote something in future, I was intentionally very selective in what I quoted above and didn't quote anything remotely near the entirety of the Independent's article about Zaha. I quoted a number of paragraphs from different parts of the article that I thought were particularly relevant to earlier discussions on eligibility and association switches. For future reference and the sake of clarity, what exactly is constituted by "an extract" or how many paragraphs exactly is "a few"?

I posted a guideline for you a few days ago

Danny, as a rule of thumb, if you're quoting more than a paragraph, then the link is enough

If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in the support forum. It's nothing to do with eligibility

DannyInvincible

01/04/2017, 11:05 AM

Michael O'Neill was on OTB last night and towards the end Ger Gilroy asked him about him being "annoyed at the FAI...".
The whole thing is worth a listen but the bit that got to me starts at 18:31 and the interview ends at 21:49.

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/michael-oneill-interview-why-ireland-lack-creativity-dirty-derbies#t=18:31

I tweeted in to the show to register my annoyance at the disingenuous nature of what MONI was saying. Same tired crap again to make out that it is always about a "choice" and not about a "chance to represent their country". Grr.

O'Neill purports to be of the belief that it's unfair for one association to ask a player to switch to another association (although his framing of the situation in such terms is disingenuous as it is, as it implies that the FAI are making inappropriate demands of young vulnerable players), seemingly because he thinks players are "too young", or "not ready", to be making big career decisions before they are 21. Is O'Neill instructing his association to decline from selecting or facilitating players under the age of 21? Hardly. He's looking out for his and his association's own interests. (There's no problem with that, but he should at least just be honest about it.)

When the IFA invite a player between the ages of 17 and 21 into one of their teams, they're still asking that player to make an active or positive decision on his future career, so why would it necessarily be wrong for the FAI to invite a player to make an informed decision on playing for them? If O'Neill really wants to "protect" young players from the supposed nitty-gritty of international football allegiance because he thinks they're "too young/vulnerable" or whatever to be making big calls before the age of 21, he can always instruct his association not to place such players in positions where they will, due to being called up by the IFA, have to make a decision in the first place. Of course, it's a daft, unrealistic suggestion and I'm not suggesting it in seriousness, but it's the logical conclusion of his position and it exposes the disingenuousness of what he's saying because we know full well he would never advocate that.

Besides, as we know, the player makes the decision himself - it's not forced by the FAI - and, often, he'll have his family, friends and whoever else is important in his life help him make any such decision if that's something he wants to entertain and pursue. The player isn't being asked to switch by the FAI; that implies the exertion of undue pressure. He'll be facilitated if he makes it clear he'd like to switch. At "worst", he may be asked if he'd like to switch, or if he'd be interested in considering it, but he won't be asked to switch. On the part of the FAI, there's certainly no expectation, presumption or sense of obligation to switch imposed upon players.

It's worth mentioning also, as we know, that the FAI insist that they await contact from the player (or their family) first. We know that this was the case as far as players like Aaron McEneff and Rory Hale are concerned (as confirmed by Noel King (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1911733&viewfull=1#post1911733) and Hale himself (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1911914&viewfull=1#post1911914)), in spite of Michael O'Neill's accusations.

Although O'Neill claims to understand it, he seems to disparage the notion of players making a decision on an emotional basis, as if to suggest players who factor in their emotional attachment to Ireland have been somehow duped or easily led. If players want to make their decision on such a basis primarily - as was the case with players like James McClean or Shane Duffy - that's their call. It's their career; not Michael O'Neill's. It's none of his business what factors come into play for those making what is their own private decision. It's still a rational, informed decision. It's insulting to imply they might have been misled by their own identity and sensibilities. Indeed, plenty of players may be happier with winning just one cap for Ireland (or even with just having the opportunity to challenge for one coveted cap) than winning one hundred caps for NI because the reality is that they have absolutely no national, cultural or emotional attachment to NI.

Fundamentally, O'Neill seemingly misunderstands the purpose of the current FIFA rules on switching (but he's free to petition FIFA if he wishes; no point badgering the FAI and young northern-born Ireland players about it). He appears to think that imposing a restriction upon players switching until after they pass the age of 21 would protect young players, but this would have the very opposite effect. It would tie young players to associations, such as the IFA (who are ultimately looking out for their own interests rather than those of specific players), for a considerable period of time based on potentially undesirable decisions that were made immaturely or prematurely in a young player's life. This could restrict players' development or impinge upon their advancement. The rules as they stand are there to protect players, young and old, from self-interested (or potentially unscrupulous) associations. I suspect O'Neill is feigning concern for young players as an emotive pretext - "Won't somebody think of the children?!" - to disguise the fact that he's really just looking out for the interests of his own association.

If the players were O'Neill's real concern, he might mention how the senior international careers of the likes of Alex Bruce, Shane McEleney, Ryan Brobbel or Johnny Gorman hardly took off after they opted to switch from the FAI to the IFA, yet he never talks about them. Weird, that... :rolleyes:

Olé Olé

02/04/2017, 4:17 PM

Agree with you there. And what of the IFA fast tracking the likes of Duffy, Gorman and Shane Ferguson in their teens to the senior side? Really concerned about their ability to make a decision at a young age they were then...

So players shouldn't switch before 21 but he has a dig off Jordan McEneff and the Hales saying the coaches in the IFA put effort into coaching then and they should play for Ireland if they want to? http://m.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/it-was-terrible-north-boss-michael-oneill-blasts-fai-policy-as-young-players-switch-allegiance-35522480.html

He's so inconsistent is O'Neill. At least the message was consistent when it was a unionist like Nigel Worthington making the statements...

Gather round

02/04/2017, 5:37 PM

Michael O'Neill on Off the Ball

Thanks for that link. I can't disagree with much of what you, DI and others have said ;)

Michael's an intelligent guy and clearly doing well at the day job right now, but here's he's just doing the politician's thing of trying to please two opposed audiences at the same time. Put simply, many NI fans are annoyed when any local player declares for the South, so O'Neill feels he has to respond without actually slagging the FAI/ player/ his auntie Majella (apparently all you Catholics have one).

Of course it's hypocritical given all the examples mentioned (Alex Bruce etc.), and also because MON junior and senior obviously get on well, and our players like their training base in Dublin. Unlike Belfast, the hotel, training pitch and golf course are on the same complex, so the idle fcukers don't have get a bus or fully dressed to move from one to the other...

TheOneWhoKnocks

02/04/2017, 5:55 PM

@ Gather Round

Are the Northern Ireland national team really based in Dublin for training?

Gather round

02/04/2017, 6:23 PM

@ Gather Round

Are the Northern Ireland national team really based in Dublin for training?

Aye, I believe it's near the M50 southside. Rory McIlroy hangs out with them when he's playing or practising at K Club.

Another advantage is that Dublin Airport is an international hub- Aldergrove and Glentoran are sub-regional.

Charlie Darwin

03/04/2017, 11:47 PM

his auntie Majella (apparently all you Catholics have one).
I have an uncle Majella.

Perhaps I've said too much.

Olé Olé

07/04/2017, 4:18 PM

BonnieShels

07/04/2017, 4:27 PM

http://the42.ie/3328723

Not often an NI under 21 player is referred to as Irish and nice snippet on his GAA exploits.

McCartan was mentioned in this thread before I think. He had a tweet in support of the Irish national team, along with a few others.

There's a difference between playing for the IFA team and then being "Northern Irish". In this case I'm sure Mr Séamus McCartan might have mentioned something. :P

That being said, it is an Irish website, so they w(sh)ould know those subtleties.

Blue Lou

12/04/2017, 9:37 PM

Cape Verde want to make an as yet unreported change to FIFA eligibility rules according to the FIFA Congress agenda (http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/02/87/91/29/agendaen_neutral.pdf).

14.4 Request to amend the provisions of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes regardingthe eligibility to play for representative teams (proposed by the Cape Verde Football Association)

Here's the whole "eligibility to play for representative teams" section from the April 2016 Statutes (http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/02/78/29/07/fifastatutsweben_neutral.pdf).

7 Acquisition of a new nationality

Any player who refers to art. 5 par. 1 to assume a new nationality and who has not played international football in accordance with art. 5 par. 2 shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfils one of the
following conditions:

a) He was born on the territory of the relevant association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant association;
d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant association.

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

a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition at “A” international level for his current association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an official competition for his current association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play.

b) He is not permitted to play for his new association in any competition in which he has already played for his previous association.

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

3.
Any player who has the right to change associations in accordance with par. 1 and 2 above shall submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat. The Players’ Status Committee shall decide on the request. The procedure will be in accordance with the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Once the player has filed his request, he is not eligible to play for any representative team until his request has been processed.

I wonder what it is they are trying to change. Unfortunately, most media coverage is focusing on USA wanting to bring the World Cup vote forward.

I imagine it is something to do with 7 d). As it stands, it would seem that players who became nationals before the age of 18 aren't truly catered for in the rules in the eyes of the FA, allowing Portugal to offer citizenship to promising Cape Verdean players before the age of 18 and the Portuguese FA selecting them in their national teams.

Just to clarify, I think:

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

can be read as

d) After reaching the age of 18, he has lived continuously for at least five years on the territory of the relevant association.

which would mean that the requirement to live in the nation the player wishes to play for, for five years only applies to those aged 18 and over.

DannyInvincible

12/04/2017, 11:39 PM

I imagine it is something to do with 7 d). As it stands, it would seem that players who became nationals before the age of 18 aren't truly catered for in the rules in the eyes of the FA, allowing Portugal to offer citizenship to promising Cape Verdean players before the age of 18 and the Portuguese FA selecting them in their national teams.

You could well be right. Indeed, the instance of an association proposing a change to littera (d) of article 7 at the FIFA Congress would not be unprecedented.

This post (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805274&viewfull=1#post1805274) - the third in a series of five consecutive and related posts documenting some very informative e-mail exchanges I had had just over two years ago now with a Switzerland-based sports law and eligibility rules specialist named Yann Hafner - is sure to be of interest to you. I'll quote the most relevant segment below, although you may find the entire post (and the other posts around it) insightful also.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NeverFeltBetter

02/05/2017, 12:19 PM

Olé Olé

02/05/2017, 2:45 PM

Had to smile at the way the following article was phrased: http://www.msn.com/en-ie/sport/football/wilfried-zahas-africa-cup-of-nations-commitments-could-scupper-tottenham-move/ar-BBABTCt?li=AAdf4rm&ocid=spartanntp

It's not just that he's playing for Cote d'Ivoire thats the problem, no, no, it's that he picked them over England specifically. One wonders if the English press and authorities will ever be able to accept that someone with a dual background might not want to play for England.
Ah there have been some tremendously hilarious reactions to this choice. The headline in this article is just brilliant: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4354358/Wilfried-Zaha-did-not-heart-play-England.html

Olé Olé

02/05/2017, 2:47 PM

I guess the Daily Mail don't comprehend why anybody would refuse to play for a country in which the media are so on their side. Like when they looked after Zaha here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442327/Wilfried-Zaha-Manchester-United-star-denies-affair-David-Moyes-teenage-daughter-Lauren.html

geysir

05/05/2017, 4:07 PM

I was re reading your post from the top this page, Danny.

This post (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805274&viewfull=1#post1805274) - the third in a series of five consecutive and related posts documenting some very informative e-mail exchanges I had had just over two years ago now with a Switzerland-based sports law and eligibility rules specialist named Yann Hafner - is sure to be of interest to you. I'll quote the most relevant segment below, although you may find the entire post (and the other posts around it) insightful also.

He (Yann) made the following very insightful points as to why FIFA might prefer a continuation of the present situation whereby exemptions are granted with article 7(d) still intact:
"In my opinion, the FIFA administration and the Player’s Status Committee are bound by the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, which provides no legal basis to grant such an exception. This being, I am also of the opinion that art. 7 lit. d FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, although it was passed by the Congress, is probably not proportionate and thus, could be deemed illegal under EU law [https://www.academia.edu/291079/La_q..._du_Monde_2010 (https://www.academia.edu/291079/La_qualification_des_joueurs_en_%C3%A9quipe_repr%C 3%A9sentative_au_regard_de_la_r%C3%A9glementation_ de_la_FIFA_le_cas_de_la_Coupe_du_Monde_2010) at para 39 ff]"

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

A legal base for exemptions from the written laws can be provided by precedent. And Fifa have a long history of issuing exemptions to their statutes.

I haven't come across Fifa giving an exemption from the 5 year residency (after age of 18) to an EU born footballer. I seriously doubt that the 'freedom of movement EU law' argument would pass muster in the context of Fifa's statutes of international eligibility. International duty is not a job, it's something else.
The examples I have seen of exemptions from article 7 are where Fifa have issued them to children of immigrants who have settled in a european country. These are children of families who have moved for basic better life motives, not just refugees or successful asylum applicants.

So much so, that it appears that the clear motive of the 5 year residency requirement is cut out luring minors away from their birth country and up the ante on senior players exploiting a previously lax 2 year residency requirement. However it is not used to 'punish' children of immigrants, these young players just have to provide evidence of their circumstances in order to get Fifa permission to declare for the country of their new citizenship.

DannyInvincible

05/05/2017, 5:25 PM

A legal base for exemptions from the written laws can be provided by precedent. And Fifa have a long history of issuing exemptions to their statutes.

I've no real issue with what you say there. I think Yann was just saying that the legal basis for the exemptions doesn't expressly derive from the statutes, but I don't think anyone would disagree that FIFA have a long history of issuing exemptions to their "de jure" statutes and that these deviations create what I suppose you could call de facto legal precedents.

I haven't come across Fifa giving an exemption from the 5 year residency (after age of 18) to an EU born footballer. I seriously doubt that the 'freedom of movement EU law' argument would pass muster in the context of Fifa's statutes of international eligibility. International duty is not a job, it's something else.
The examples I have seen of exemptions from article 7 are where Fifa have issued them to children of immigrants who have settled in a european country. These are children of families who have moved for basic better life motives, not just refugees or successful asylum applicants.

So much so, that it appears that the clear motive of the 5 year residency requirement is cut out luring minors away from their birth country and up the ante on senior players exploiting a previously lax 2 year residency requirement. However it is not used to 'punish' children of immigrants, these young players just have to provide evidence of their circumstances in order to get Fifa permission to declare for the country of their new citizenship.

If a player - who was born in country A (outside the EU), but who moved to country B in the EU, say, as a refugee in early childhood, and who has since acquired citizenship of country B and, consequently, the EU - is forced to remain in country B for five years after his 18th birthday in order to satisfy FIFA's eligibility regulations so as to qualify to play for country B, wouldn't that amount to a possible disproportional restriction to his freedom of movement as an EU citizen if a club in country C (also in the EU) wants to sign him?

Edit: Alternatively, if a player - who was born in country A (within the EU), but who moved to country B (also within the EU) in early childhood, and who has since acquired citizenship of country B - is forced to remain in country B for five years after his 18th birthday in order to satisfy FIFA's eligibility regulations so as to qualify to play for country B, wouldn't that also still amount to a possible disproportional restriction to his freedom of movement as an EU citizen if a club in country C (also in the EU) sought to sign him?

geysir

05/05/2017, 9:53 PM

I've no real issue with what you say there. I think Yann was just saying that the legal basis for the exemptions doesn't expressly derive from the statutes, but I don't think anyone would disagree that FIFA have a long history of issuing exemptions to their "de jure" statutes and that these deviations create what I suppose you could call de facto legal precedents.

If a player - who was born in country A (outside the EU), but who moved to country B in the EU, say, as a refugee in early childhood, and who has since acquired citizenship of country B and, consequently, the EU - is forced to remain in country B for five years after his 18th birthday in order to satisfy FIFA's eligibility regulations so as to qualify to play for country B, wouldn't that amount to a possible disproportional restriction to his freedom of movement as an EU citizen if a club in country C (also in the EU) wants to sign him?

Edit: Alternatively, if a player - who was born in country A (within the EU), but who moved to country B (also within the EU) in early childhood, and who has since acquired citizenship of country B - is forced to remain in country B for five years after his 18th birthday in order to satisfy FIFA's eligibility regulations so as to qualify to play for country B, wouldn't that also still amount to a possible disproportional restriction to his freedom of movement as an EU citizen if a club in country C (also in the EU) sought to sign him?
Players with a new eu citizenship have total freedom of movement, but for representing their new country they just have to satisfy the residence requirement of that country in order for FIFA to be satisfied about their connection to the new country. There is nobody compelling that player to play international football, that it would interfere with their choice to be resident in another country to take up employment with a club there.
Interestingly enough, a UK resident can leave the UK for 2 years to work elsewhere without breaking their UK residence requirements.
International squad duty is not employment per se, it's not a civil right, also it's not in any law, except perhaps the GFA which specifically mentions that Nordies can play for the FAI. :).
Possibly in Irish Rugby one could say that international duty is a work contract to be 100% respected by both parties, but even so, there is no freedom of movement for the rugby player to move around the rugby nations in order to ply one's trade to another county, that player has to observe the eligibility rules.

DannyInvincible

06/05/2017, 12:47 AM

Players with a new eu citizenship have total freedom of movement, but for representing their new country they just have to satisfy the residence requirement of that country in order for FIFA to be satisfied about their connection to the new country. There is nobody compelling that player to play international football, that it would interfere with their choice to be resident in another country to take up employment with a club there.

That's true, but if the association of his new country has declared an interest in him, then it's the eligibility regulation that is directly impinging upon the player's potential selection despite him having been a citizen of that country (for purposes other than acquiring footballing eligibility) since childhood. In order to become eligible for that association, he'd have to remain in the country and reject any employment offers from abroad until the age of 23, thus his freedom of movement would be restricted until aged 23 if he wishes to play international football for his new country. As Yann mentioned, such a restriction may, in his opinion, fall foul of the proportionality test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_principles_of_European_Union_law#Proportio nality).

In the majority of cases - if the eligibility regulations were ever tested in the EU courts, that is - the regulations would presumably be regarded as proportional under EU law as they would perhaps be deemed suitable and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and considered not to be having an excessive effect on players' interests.

Interestingly enough, a UK resident can leave the UK for 2 years to work elsewhere without breaking their UK residence requirements.

How so?