Eligibility Rules, Okay

[geysir]

Maybe someone could clarify what is meant by the last paragraph. I know it was discussed a bit before and the conclusion was drawn that it was referring to the IFA, but I can't put my finger on where exactly right now. I have to assume it is referring to the IFA, as otherwise it would contradict the evidence all of FIFA, the IFA and the FAI submitted to CAS, but is there an error in there? Should it not say the following?:


"The reasons why they [the IFA] departed from their stated policy of confining selection to those players born in the [north] have never been satisfactorily explained..."
Not at all Danny, consider the earlier line,
'a policy that was not shared by the football authorities in Dublin with just one exception'.
To my understanding, the whole piece you quote from the FAI website makes consistent sense.


Or can confining your selection to a certain set of players mean that you're limiting your selection to players outside of that set? I generally thought it meant you'd be limiting your selection to players within, rather than outside, some limit or boundary, no? Does that make sense? For example, if you're asked to select a few cards from a pack but to confine your selection to red cards, wouldn't that be an instruction to limit your selection and choose from just hearts and diamonds rather than an instruction to limit your selection to cards of a black suit?
Go back to the FAI's submissions to CAS
CAS 2010/A/2071 IFA v/ FAI, Kearns & FIFA - Page 6
The so-called “1950 FIFA Ruling” and the alleged subsequent accord between the associations do not exist, at least not in the terms asserted by the IFA. Up until 1950, both associations claimed to govern all football in Ireland and to be entitled to choose players from throughout the island, without any reference to their geographical location. In the beginning of the 1950’s, the two associations accepted that they could no longer regard all players on the island as being under their jurisdiction and agreed that the IFA was the governing body of football in Northern Ireland and the FAI in the Republic of Ireland. In any event, there was no discussion about the status of Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland and FAI has never accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its representative teams, whether they were living in Northern Ireland or elsewhere.
- “Any rule or ruling from 1950, or thereafter, was in any case replaced by the adoption of Articles 15 to 18 of the FIFA Regulations, which were created to govern the issue of eligibility and nationality in a comprehensive manner” (answer, page 17, par. 51).

CAS upheld this submission.

[Irwin3]

I was just looking at this bit again on the FAI's website and the wording still puzzles me somewhat:


"The decade of the 1950s marked the resolution of the thorny issue of dual qualification of players born on the island of Ireland and also the intervention of FIFA to apply an official designation to the two associations governing football on the island.

The Irish Football Association in Belfast continued to select players from the south for their international teams in the years after the War, a policy that was not shared by the football authorities in Dublin with just one exception.

The Football Association in Dublin selected four Northern Ireland players in a squad that travelled to play Portugal and Spain in the Summer of 1946 in Ireland's first two international matches after the War.

The reasons why they departed from their stated policy of confining selection to those players born in the Republic have never been satisfactorily explained but the licence to look beyond the political boundary separating the North from the Republic for team selections was revoked in 1950."

Maybe someone could clarify what is meant by the last paragraph. I know it was discussed a bit before and the conclusion was drawn that it was referring to the IFA, but I can't put my finger on where exactly right now. I have to assume it is referring to the IFA, as otherwise it would contradict the evidence all of FIFA, the IFA and the FAI submitted to CAS, but is there an error in there? Should it not say the following?:


"The reasons why they [the IFA] departed from their stated policy of confining selection to those players born in the [north] have never been satisfactorily explained..."

Or can confining your selection to a certain set of players mean that you're limiting your selection to players outside of that set? I generally thought it meant you'd be limiting your selection to players within, rather than outside, some limit or boundary, no? Does that make sense? For example, if you're asked to select a few cards from a pack but to confine your selection to red cards, wouldn't that be an instruction to limit your selection and choose from just hearts and diamonds rather than an instruction to limit your selection to cards of a black suit?

I've just read this for the first time. To me it is referring to the FAI and it follows from the previous paragraph which refers to the one departure in the FAI selection policy in 1946 in selecting 4 Northerners to play Portugal and Spain. Tis strange as it appears to be written by a neutral/outsider.

[DannyInvincible]

If it's referring to the FAI, then when did they state a policy of confining selection to just players born in the Republic? And wouldn't that have implicitly ruled out northern-born Irish nationals from lining out for the FAI?

[Irwin3]

If it's referring to the FAI, then when did they state a policy of confining selection to just players born in the Republic? And wouldn't that have implicitly ruled out northern-born Irish nationals from lining out for the FAI?

It appears to be a badly written piece. I've just had a look on wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Irish_international_footballers

Going from the wiki on dual Irish internationals I can only see 11 Northern born players who represented the FAI. 6 of these were dual internationals and 5 represented only the FAI.

The first was Harry Chatton who was born in Belfast. He made his last IFA appearance in 1925 and made his debut for the FAI aged 32 in 1931.

In 1936 and 1937 6 Northern born players were selected for the FAI. They were Hugh Connolly, Davy Jordan, John Feenan, Mick Hoy, Tommy Donnelly and Jackie Brown. Of these only Jackie Brown had played for the IFA.

From Jackie Brown's entry:
"Brown was one of several players born in Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland) who benefited from the FAI’s attempts to establish their all-Ireland influence. He was first called up by the FAI for a game against Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_national_football_team) on 17 October 1936 but he was injured at the time. In May 1937 the FAI organised a European tour with a squad that included Brown and two other Northerners, Davy Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Jordan) and John Feenan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Feenan). Brown made his debut for the FAI XI on 17 May in a 1–0 win against Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_national_football_team). A week later, on 23 May, he scored the second goal as the FAI XI defeated France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_national_football_team) 2–0. This would prove to be his last appearance for the FAI XI. However in May 1938, for another European tour, the FAI once again called up Brown, together with two other Northerners, Harry Baird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Baird_%28footballer%29) and Walter McMillen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_McMillen). However this time the IFA objected and all three players received telegrams from the English FA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Football_Association) ordering them not to accept the offer on the grounds they were not born in the Irish Free State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State)."


From Harry Baird's entry:
"In May 1938, Baird, together with Jackie Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Brown_%28footballer%29) and Walter McMillen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_McMillen), was one of three Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland)-born players called up by the FAI XI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_national_football_team_%28FAI%29) to play in two friendlies against Czechoslovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia_national_football_team) and Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_national_football_team). However the IFA objected and Baird subsequently received a telegram from the English FA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Football_Association) ordering him not to accept the offer on the grounds he was not born in the Irish Free State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State). Baird was bitterly disappointed at missing the chance of an international debut and was keen to play for financial reasons as much as anything. He was neutral about the dispute and was willing to play for either team. However facing suspension from the English FA, he eventually declined the FAI offer."


This push of 1936-1937 was an attempt to establish the FAI as an all-Ireland association. The timing might have something to do with the December 1937 constitution of Ireland?


There were then the 4 Northern born dual-internationals who played for the FAI on the Iberian tour of 1946. They were Jimmy McAlinden, Billy McMillan, Jackie Vernon and Paddy Sloan.


So it seems as if the FAI made 2 pushes to select Northern born players. One in 1936/37 and one in 1946. The appeal for the dual internationals was to play 'home internationals' for the IFA and to play against european opposition for the FAI. The IFA and the FA disputed the FAI's right to select Northern born players while the IFA freely picked anyone from Ireland.

I have no idea when the FAI stated any 26 county born only policy. After 1950 didn't the IFA stick to the 6 counties and the FAI stick to the 26. Was Kernaghan the next non 26 county linked player to play for the FAI?

P.S. Was Shay Brennan the first non-Ireland born or just the first english born to play for Ireland? This didn't happen until 1965.

[DannyInvincible]

I think Kernaghan would have been the next player to play for us through his northern roots, yeah.

I see the piece I wrote got a mention by Chris Donnelly on Slugger: http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/07/01/worthy-goes-for-bruce-signals-end-to-eligibility-hostilities/


A number of sure signs that the football eligibility row has been permanently resolved could be detected in recent weeks. Firstly, there was the news that Northern Ireland manager, Nigel Worthington, was actively pursuing former Republic of Ireland international, Alex Bruce, as a prospective Northern Ireland international for the future.
...

Secondly, the news that Sinn Fein’s DCAL Minister has signalled her willingness to attend a Northern Ireland international fixture at Windsor Park indicates that Sinn Fein leaders are clearly of the belief that the eligibility row is over.

I'd have to agree that this ought to be the closing of the final chapter. It would be a bit rich for the IFA to prolong the farce. Hopefully, NI fans can follow suit and acknowledge the reality of the consociational, bi-communal society in which they live.

[DannyInvincible]

P.S. Was Shay Brennan the first non-Ireland born or just the first english born to play for Ireland? This didn't happen until 1965.

You could be right. For some reason, I though it was Charlie Gallagher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gallagher_(association_footballer)) who won the European Cup with Celtic in 1967, but it appears he was the first Scottish-born player to play for Ireland. He was the son of Donegal parents and made his debut for us away to Turkey in February of 1967.

[ArdeeBhoy]

It would be a bit rich for the IFA to prolong the farce. Hopefully, NI fans can follow suit and acknowledge the reality of the consociational, bi-communal society in which they live.

The IFA, yes, probably? The rest, well some (a majority I reckon), to put it politely, doubtful.

[DannyInvincible]

By the way, this is only something I realised recently through research I was doing when writing the eligibility piece, but, to the best of my knowledge, it was only after the passing of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1956 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1956/en/act/pub/0026/print.html#sec6) that Irish citizenship was offered to those born in the north. Likewise, it was only after this date that citizenship was conferred to the sons and daughters born of Irish citizens outside Ireland.

Prior to their amendment post-Good Friday Agreement, articles 2 and 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann didn't actually make specific reference to the citizenship rights of those born in the north, or anyone for that matter:


2. The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

3. Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.

And from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_nationality_law


The 1937 Constitution

...

With regard to Northern Ireland, despite the irredentist nature and rhetorical claims of articles 2 and 3 of the new constitution, the compatibility of Irish citizenship law with the state’s boundaries remained unaltered.

Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956

In 1956, the Irish parliament enacted the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. This Act repealed the 1935 Act and remains, although heavily amended, the basis of Irish citizenship law. This act, according to Ó Caoindealbháin, altered radically the treatment of Northern Ireland residents in Irish citizenship law. With the enactment of the Republic of Ireland Act in 1948, and the subsequent passage of the Ireland Act by the British government in 1949, the state’s constitutional independence was assured, facilitating the resolution of the unsatisfactory position from an Irish nationalist perspective whereby births in Northern Ireland were assimilated to “foreign” births. The Irish government was explicit in its aim to amend this situation, seeking to extend citizenship as widely as possible to Northern Ireland, as well as to Irish emigrants and their descendants abroad.

The Act therefore provided for Irish citizenship for anyone born in the island of Ireland whether before or after independence. The only limitations to which were that anyone born in Northern Ireland was not automatically an Irish citizen but entitled to be an Irish citizen and, that a child of someone entitled to diplomatic immunity in the state would not become an Irish citizen. The Act also provided for open-ended citizenship by descent and for citizenship by registration for the wives (but not husbands) of Irish citizens.

The treatment of Northern Ireland residents in these sections had considerable significance for the state’s territorial boundaries, given that their “sensational effect … was to confer, in the eyes of Irish law, citizenship on the vast majority of the Northern Ireland population”.[42] The compatibility of this innovation with international law, according to Ó Caoindealbháin was dubious, "given its attempt to regulate the citizenship of an external territory ... In seeking to extend jus soli citizenship beyond the state’s jurisdiction, the 1956 Act openly sought to subvert the territorial boundary between North and South". The implications of the Act were readily recognised in Northern Ireland, with Lord Brookeborough tabling a motion in the Parliament of Northern Ireland repudiating “the gratuitous attempt … to inflict unwanted Irish Republican nationality upon the people of Northern Ireland”.

Nevertheless, Irish citizenship continued to be extended to the inhabitants of Northern Ireland for over 40 years, representing, according to Ó Caoindealbháin, "one of the few practical expressions of the Irish state’s irredentism." Ó Caoindealbháin concludes, however, that the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 altered significantly the territorial implications of Irish citizenship law, if somewhat ambiguously, via two key provisions: the renunciation of the constitutional territorial claim over Northern Ireland, and the recognition of “the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British or both, as they may so choose”, and that “their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments".

In regard to international law, Ó Caoindealbháin states that, although it is the attempt to confer citizenship extra-territorially without the agreement of the state affected that represents a breach of international law (not the actual extension), the 1956 Act "co-exists uneasily with the terms of the Agreement, and, by extension, the official acceptance by the Irish state of the current border. While the Agreement recognises that Irish citizenship is the birthright of those born in Northern Ireland, it makes clear that its acceptance is a matter of individual choice. In contrast, the 1956 Act continues to extend citizenship automatically in the majority of cases, thereby, in legal effect, conflicting with the agreed status of the border and the principle of consent".

I'm not so sure I agree with what Ó Caoindealbháin is purported to be saying, mind; that the legislation "conferred", or "inflicted", as Brookeborough described it, Irish citizenship upon those born in the north. To confer something, especially its use in the context above, possibly implies automaticity or a lack of choice and it wasn't being forced upon anybody who didn't want it. If you have a read of the 1956 Act, you'll see that section 7 states:


Irish citizenship by birth or descent.

6.—(1) Every person born in Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth.

(2) Every person is an Irish citizen if his father or mother was an Irish citizen at the time of that person's birth or becomes an Irish citizen under subsection (1) or would be an Irish citizen under that subsection if alive at the passing of this Act.

(3) In the case of a person born before the passing of this Act, subsection (2) applies from the date of its passing. In every other case, it applies from birth.

(4) A person born before the passing of this Act whose father or mother is an Irish citizen under subsection (2), or would be if alive at its passing, shall be an Irish citizen from the date of its passing.

(5) Subsection (1) shall not confer Irish citizenship on the child of an alien who, at the time of the child's birth, is entitled to diplomatic immunity in the State.

Formalities to be complied with in certain cases.

7.—(1) Pending the re-integration of the national territory, subsection (1) of section 6 shall not apply to a person, not otherwise an Irish citizen, born in Northern Ireland on or after the 6th December, 1922, unless, in the prescribed manner, that person, if of full age, declares himself to be an Irish citizen or, if he is not of full age, his parent or guardian declares him to be an Irish citizen. In any such case, the subsection shall be deemed to apply to him from birth.

...

I would have thought section 7 precluded the possibility of any automatic conferral of citizenship upon someone who'd be unlikely to want it, leaving a declaration of Irish citizenship as a matter of choice or entitlement to those born in the north to parents who were not Irish citizens

[geysir]

If it's referring to the FAI, then when did they state a policy of confining selection to just players born in the Republic? And wouldn't that have implicitly ruled out northern-born Irish nationals from lining out for the FAI?

1946 according to the documents filed to the CAS. The FAI requested from FIFA that players born in the South could not be selected for any other association.
That is the 'stated policy' as referred to on the FAI's website, with which there was one exception for the Iberian tour.
But the 'FAI has never accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its representative teams, whether they were living in Northern Ireland or elsewhere'

It's not so complicated, is it ?

[Noelys Guitar]

Alex Bruce has switched to NI and good luck to him.

[Irwin3]

Very interesting Danny. Reading the last bolded part makes me wonder about the status of those born prior to 1922 in the years before this act of 1956. As far as I'm aware the 11 Northern born players who played for the FAI in the 30's and 40's were all born before 1922. I presume both associations just assumed they were Irish and eligible for their teams.

So were the 'missing years' of not selecting Northern born players anything to do with this act affecting the legality of these players citizenships.

We have the 11 players born before 1922 the last of whom played in 1946.

We have this 1956 act.

We then have english/scottish born players being selected in 1965/1967 - .

Kernaghan is presumably the next Northern born player to be selected. He was born in 1967.

Interesting stuff.

[DannyInvincible]

My own thoughts on why northern-born players suddenly decided to declare for the FAI around the mid-to-late 1990s (albeit in relatively small numbers on a yearly basis, and still so, to be honest) after no movement at all for the previous decades is as follows. Although I don't believe the Good Friday Agreement changed anything of legal substance as regards the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals to play for the FAI, I suspect its signing and the period of recognition, acceptance, reconciliation, sugar and spice and all things nice leading up to it (and since) may well have changed mindsets whereby nationalists realised or became more aware, confident, comfortable and in tune with the idea that they didn't actually have to play for a British entity if they didn't want to. Admittedly, that's just speculation on my part, but I'm attempting to understand and rationalise why switches weren't in greater number when you might have expected sectarian and political tensions to be more significant. A gentleman's agreement clearly wasn't the reason because it's pretty apparent that one didn't exist.

Likewise, with any potential accusations of irredentism finally off their backs and looking less and less valid as far as the international community or international law were concerned, the FAI could get on with being less reluctant to accept northern players (in saying that, I don't know if they turned down approaches prior to Kernaghan or the likes of Ger Crossley; maybe someone could shed light?), and possibly even offering it as a serious option without the fear of a political stir, or what might have been a much worse political stir than the one the switches have actually caused. And then, it appears, the IFA intervened in 1999 when Boyce and O'Byrne met where the FAI voluntarily agreed not to make contact with players unless they volunteered their intentions first, although awareness of the option open to northern-born Irish nationals clearly remained, and especially in Derry where - exceptions like James McClean aside - the general tendency appeared and appears to be for Derry City's Derry-born players to play for the FAI. When Gibson decided to switch and the IFA made such a hoo-ha about it, I feel they shot themselves in the foot by further publicising - or advertising even - an option open to Irish nationals in the north. Most people still seem to be of the impression that Gibson was the first NI-born player to play for the FAI in modern times, which goes to show how little awareness of northern-born players playing for Ireland there was before the IFA kicked up the storm. The brouhaha has also had the effect of alienating nationalists, which has only driven them further away from the IFA and closer to the FAI. It has made the IFA appear hostile to nationalist interests expressions of identity. The real mystery is what possessed the IFA to believe the rules as they currently stand applied any differently to how they had done when they'd received clarification from FIFA in 1994 and acknowledged the right of northern-born Irish nationals to declare for the FAI in 1999.

I read on a forum, so not sure of its veracity, that Neil Lennon would rather have played for the south had he, in his own words, had the choice. He obviously did have a choice as he began playing for NI around the same time as Kernaghan declared for us, to the best of my knowledge. Clearly, however, if the above is true, he was not in the know or made aware of the option open to him. I've read similar talk about Pat Jennings.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, speculation, conjecture or whatever you want to call it, but it's an attempt at an explanation anyway.


1946 according to the documents filed to the CAS. The FAI requested from FIFA that players born in the South could not be selected for any other association.
That is the 'stated policy' as referred to on the FAI's website, with which there was one exception for the Iberian tour.
But the 'FAI has never accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its representative teams, whether they were living in Northern Ireland or elsewhere'

It's not so complicated, is it ?

But whose stated policy was it? The FAI's or the IFA's? According to CAS, as you mention, FIFA issued two dictats around 1950 only effective upon the IFA as regards confining player selection to their own territory.

I don't understand how the FAI selecting northern-born players for the Iberian tour goes against a "policy" of theirs that apparently stated that players from the south could not play for any other country. The two aren't related, are they? Am I missing something or has this just turned my head into mush? :confused:

Unrelated somewhat, this, but can anyone confirm if Mauro Camoranesi qualified to play for Italy through Italy-born grandparents or an Italy-born great-grandparent, as his Wikipedia states? It could have interesting implications for the application and interpretation of article 15. There's a guy here claiming that the great-grandparent claim isn't actually true in response to a question I asked in order to provoke further discussion: http://socqer.com/questions/553/under-which-eligibility-rule-of-fifas-regulations-governing-the-application-of-the-statutes-did-mauro-camoranesi-qualify-to-play-for-italy/

My thinking is that if Camoranesi qualified by virtue of a great-grandfather, then he must have qualified via article 15 as he would not otherwise satisfy the sub-criteria of article 17. This, in turn, would surely imply that article 15 could be interpreted as a "granny rule" or even a "great-granny rule", maybe leaving open a possibility of, say, third, fourth or fifth generation Irish players being eligible to play for Ireland just so long as their citizenship was inherited along the lineage in line with the procedural requirements of Irish nationality law.

[AlaskaFox]

You were mentioned here Danny:
http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/07/01/worthy-goes-for-bruce-signals-end-to-eligibility-hostilities/

Also, a commenter, Boycethevoice, linked to the GS version here:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/alex-bruce-wants-to-play-for-northern-ireland-16018801.html

[geysir]

But whose stated policy was it? The FAI's or the IFA's? According to CAS, as you mention, FIFA issued two dictats around 1950 only effective upon the IFA as regards confining player selection to their own territory.
The author on the FAI site wrote that the FAI went against their stated policy and selected 4 from the North for their Iberian tour in 1948?.
By that, we take it that the author interpreted the FAI request to FIFA in 1946 as a stated policy.
But the FAI did not have a stated policy. The author got things slightly awry.
That's not a big deal is it?

The FAI's submission to the CAS on the matter is clear and consistent with FAI actions through that period and directly upheld with the CAS reference to it.

[geysir]

You were mentioned here Danny:
http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/07/01/worthy-goes-for-bruce-signals-end-to-eligibility-hostilities/

The comment is "well worth the read"
Which means - it's a real read but worth it.

[DannyInvincible]

The author on the FAI site wrote that the FAI went against their stated policy and selected 4 from the North for their Iberian tour in 1948?.
By that, we take it that the author interpreted the FAI request to FIFA in 1946 as a stated policy.
But the FAI did not have a stated policy. The author got things slightly awry.
That's not a big deal is it?

I see, 'tis an error in interpretation then from whoever edited the history section? Not a big deal. It just puzzled me as it didn't add up with what CAS found. You'd think someone would correct it.

[geysir]

From that Slugger blog
'This news has been apparently confirmed by the BBC tonight, indicating that Nigel Worthington and the IFA have effectively signalled the end of hostilities regarding the eligibility affair. The IFA were already facing the charge of hypocrisy regarding their opposition to northerners opting to leave the IFA structures to represent the Republic of Ireland'.
The IFA have decommissioned dogma and hypocrisy?
This is a cunning cover-up.
I want independent confirmation. Set up an Independent Monitoring Commission.

[geysir]

You'd think someone would correct it.
Yes Danny, we all know you're that man.

[Charlie Darwin]

My thinking is that if Camoranesi qualified by virtue of a great-grandfather, then he must have qualified via article 15 as he would not otherwise satisfy the sub-criteria of article 17. This, in turn, would surely imply that article 15 could be interpreted as a "granny rule" or even a "great-granny rule", maybe leaving open a possibility of, say, third, fourth or fifth generation Irish players being eligible to play for Ireland just so long as their citizenship was inherited along the lineage in line with the procedural requirements of Irish nationality law.
I don't know about Camoranesi specifically but I know from Italian-American friends that Italian citizenship is even more accessible than ours. You can get citizenship from as far back as a great-grandparent having citizenship (as opposed to being born there).

[ArdeeBhoy]

Alex Bruce has switched to NI and good luck to him.

That's not how some of the North's fans see it....judging by some of the negative stuff posted on forums.
But difficult to link to, unless you're actually a member.



I read on a forum, so not sure of its veracity, that Neil Lennon would rather have played for the south had he, in his own words, had the choice. He obviously did have a choice as he began playing for NI around the same time as Kernaghan declared for us, to the best of my knowledge. Clearly, however, if the above is true, he was not in the know or made aware of the option open to him. I've read similar talk about Pat Jennings.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, speculation, conjecture or whatever you want to call it, but it's an attempt at an explanation anyway.

Having read the odd tome on Lennon and having talked to his cousin, despite his heritage and where he was brought up, at that time in his career as he had been in the minds of the IFA youth and had experienced their junior set-up was why he eventually why he went onto play for the North.

But became a focus for dissent from some of their more extreme fans and his eventual international retirement came, once he moved to Celtic.
So no change there?

We can only surmise how he and Jennings and others might have reacted now....
The door is thankfully more open than it was even a decade ago.

[geysir]

Unrelated somewhat, this, but can anyone confirm if Mauro Camoranesi qualified to play for Italy through Italy-born grandparents or an Italy-born great-grandparent, as his Wikipedia states? It could have interesting implications for the application and interpretation of article 15. There's a guy here claiming that the great-grandparent claim isn't actually true in response to a question I asked in order to provoke further discussion: http://socqer.com/questions/553/under-which-eligibility-rule-of-fifas-regulations-governing-the-application-of-the-statutes-did-mauro-camoranesi-qualify-to-play-for-italy/
My thinking is that if Camoranesi qualified by virtue of a great-grandfather, then he must have qualified via article 15 as he would not otherwise satisfy the sub-criteria of article 17. This, in turn, would surely imply that article 15 could be interpreted as a "granny rule" or even a "great-granny rule", maybe leaving open a possibility of, say, third, fourth or fifth generation Irish players being eligible to play for Ireland just so long as their citizenship was inherited along the lineage in line with the procedural requirements of Irish nationality law.

Camoranesi qualified for Italy under the rules of eligibility that existed at that time.
He even would have qualified under the Annex addendum 901 that came into existence some 6 months after he declared for Italy, under the 2 year residency criteria.

[DannyInvincible]

Camoranesi qualified for Italy under the rules of eligibility that existed at that time.
He even would have qualified under the Annex addendum 901 that came into existence some 6 months after he declared for Italy, under the 2 year residency criteria.

I'd imagine Camoranesi would still have qualified under the current rules, however, regardless of whether or not he'd spent any time residing in Italy. I'm basing this supposition on the example of Thiago Motta. Motta is another oriondo who declared for Italy earlier this year, after having played for Brazil below senior level earlier in his career. He is reported to have qualified via an Italian great-grandfather. Motta was apparently born in Brazil to Brazil-born parents of Brazil-born parents themselves (although I see some sources claim he had an Italian paternal grandparent, whilst his Wikipedia - not fully sourced - claims he had Italian grandparents on both his maternal and paternal sides). A few sources mention what appears to be a very specific story (thus, more likely to be the accurate version, perhaps?) about how his Italian citizenship was inherited from an Italian great-grandfather, Fortunato Fogagnolo, who had emigrated to Brazil from Italy in 1897. Under the current rules, Motta would not have qualified via the current 5-year residency criterion as he only moved to Genoa in 2008, so if he indeed qualified through this great-grandfather, it would presumably leave article 15 open to being interpreted as a "granny rule", or a "great-granny rule" even, as article 17 makes no provision for any player qualifying via a generation beyond grand-parentage.

As for that "odd" bit on the FAI's history webpage, I'm thinking it might actually be entirely correct after all having had a better think about it and considering everything. Irish citizenship, as offered by the Irish state, only became available extra-territorially to those born outside of Ireland to Irish citizens and those born in the north since 1956 after the passing of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (not that the passing of this legislation had anything to do with the footballing situation on the island, à la what happened in Qatar; FIFA have had over half a century to counteract its effect besides if they did actually have an issue with it). If the FAI had, at any date prior to this, accepted that the association's jurisdiction did not include the whole of the island, which, of course, it did in 1950 (or possibly as far back as 1946?), it meant that it was accepting that players born in the IFA's jurisdiction were, for then, off-limits to its selection. Of course, that's not to say that the future status of Irish nationals, regardless of where they were born, was ever discussed or ruled upon by anyone. Once those in the north would have become entitled to Irish citizenship in 1956, they'd have been entitled as "subjects of the country they represent" (as per the then-"Art. 21 al. 2 of the Regulations of the F.I.F.A.", as outlined by the FIFA General Secretary, Ivo Shricker, on the 18th of October, 1946 and quoted by CAS) to play for the FAI so long as they effected their right to citizenship, regardless of whether they were born outside the FAI's territory or not. I feel this would be consistent with the wording of the text on the FAI's history webpage and the wording of the association's submission to CAS. Ultimately, it doesn't make any difference to the current situation as it would also be consistent with the findings of CAS, but it just clarifies things somewhat or clears things up in my own mind at least.

[ifk101]

If it's referring to the FAI, then when did they state a policy of confining selection to just players born in the Republic? And wouldn't that have implicitly ruled out northern-born Irish nationals from lining out for the FAI?

The FAI was founded as an All-Ireland Association but was admitted to FIFA in the 1920's as the FAIFS (Football Association of the Irish Free State). A condition of entry to FIFA was that the FAIFS confine its activities to the Free State. For example the Falls District League was affiliated to the FAI but once the FAI was admitted to FIFA as the FAIFS the Falls District League came under the "authority" of the IFA.

In the mid 1930's the FAIFS reverted back to its original name of the FAI and reverted back to its original brief as an All-Ireland Association.

The sentence you highlight from the FAI's history section is inaccurate as (a) there was no Republic at the time and (b) the change in selection policy is very much explainable as the FAIFS was no more.

[geysir]

I'd imagine Camoranesi would still have qualified under the current rules, however, regardless of whether or not he'd spent any time residing in Italy. I'm basing this supposition on the example of Thiago Motta. Motta is another oriondo who declared for Italy earlier this year, after having played for Brazil below senior level earlier in his career. He is reported to have qualified via an Italian great-grandfather. Motta was apparently born in Brazil to Brazil-born parents of Brazil-born parents themselves (although I see some sources claim he had an Italian paternal grandparent, whilst his Wikipedia - not fully sourced - claims he had Italian grandparents on both his maternal and paternal sides). A few sources mention what appears to be a very specific story (thus, more likely to be the accurate version, perhaps?) about how his Italian citizenship was inherited from an Italian great-grandfather, Fortunato Fogagnolo, who had emigrated to Brazil from Italy in 1897. Under the current rules, Motta would not have qualified via the current 5-year residency criterion as he only moved to Genoa in 2008, so if he indeed qualified through this great-grandfather, it would presumably leave article 15 open to being interpreted as a "granny rule", or a "great-granny rule" even, as article 17 makes no provision for any player qualifying via a generation beyond grand-parentage.

Then you should have just asked about Motta :)

It's reported that Motta has always held Italian citizenship and UEFA report (http://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=946506.html) that he has an Italian grandfather. The grandfather link means he is article 17 compliant.

[DannyInvincible]

The FAI was founded as an All-Ireland Association but was admitted to FIFA in the 1920's as the FAIFS (Football Association of the Irish Free State). A condition of entry to FIFA was that the FAIFS confine its activities to the Free State. For example the Falls District League was affiliated to the FAI but once the FAI was admitted to FIFA as the FAIFS the Falls District League came under the "authority" of the IFA.

In the mid 1930's the FAIFS reverted back to its original name of the FAI and reverted back to its original brief as an All-Ireland Association.

The sentence you highlight from the FAI's history section is inaccurate as (a) there was no Republic at the time and (b) the change in selection policy is very much explainable as the FAIFS was no more.

I'm aware the FAI split from the IFA in order to replace it as an all-island body rather than merely act as an off-shoot in governing football in the newly-established Irish Free State. Bunreacht na hÉireann would have replaced the 1922 Constitution of Saorstát Eireann in 1937 and the FAI readopted its current name in 1936 in anticipation of the state's name-change. The state was formally recognised as a republic (in description rather than title; the official name of the state remains Ireland in English, despite what many seem to believe) in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 that came into force in early 1949. After the IFA joined FIFA in 1946, is it more or less correct to say that the FAI accepted its jurisdiction as the 26-county state that would be formally acknowledged as a republic in 1949? In other words, is there anything in my above analysis which you'd dispute or with which you'd take issue bar not having corrected the FAI's premature reference to "the Republic"?


Then you should have just asked about Motta :)

It's reported that Motta has always held Italian citizenship and UEFA report (http://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=946506.html) that he has an Italian grandfather. The grandfather link means he is article 17 compliant.

Ha, indeed. I only came across the example of Motta since I discussed Camoranesi. I wonder is this Fogagnolo actually a grandparent then, although his dates would suggest not as they place about 85 years between him being 20 in 1897 and Motta being born in 1982, which seems like an awful lot of time. Either he or Motta's own father, or both even, must have been exceptionally old when their next generation came along. Ultimately, Motta doesn't really provide any conclusion either though, or can we still assume that those born outside of Italy whose only link is an Italian-born great-grandparent would actually qualify under article 15?

[DannyInvincible]

From my experience on OWC, that chap comes across as very irreconcilable. I think he was partly behind that ludicrous 'Open Letter' and petition campaign. His comments on your article are petty and childish - his first criticism was against the format of the greenscene article, because, well, he obviously had nothing important to say about the content. How could he?

I see another poster called 'the_hawk' has similar to say in response to a previous poster's suggestion that someone try and compile a response to at least some of the points I've raised:


That would imply there's actually some merit to the article to make it worth countering, meanwhile anyone with have a brain could tell for themselves its all ill-informed rambling & treat it with the contempt it deserves by ignoring it.

Maybe a more fitting username would be 'the_osterich'.

http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg

[geysir]

Ultimately, Motta doesn't really provide any conclusion either though
Yep, you need evidence for some conclusion.

or can we still assume that those born outside of Italy whose only link is an Italian-born great-grandparent would actually qualify under article 15?
It would be irrational to assume that the theory is true when there is no evidence to support it.

[Stuttgart88]

That response by the_hawk beggars belief. It's actually upsetting that someone could think like that.

I appeal to OWC users here such as NB and/or GR to put him right on behalf of all sane individuals with an interest in the topic. It is anything but ill-informed rambling deserving of contempt. I'm sure Danny will be the first to admit any inaccuracy if any was confirmed, and he'd be very happy to respond to any suspicion of inaccuracy.

[DannyInvincible]

Yep, you need evidence for some conclusion.

It would be irrational to assume that the theory is true when there is no evidence to support it.

That's true, although having had a semi-cursory look at the nature of Italian nationality law in relation those who acquire it through jure sanguinis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nationality_law#Special_acquisition_of_cit izenship_through_jure_sanguinis), it would seem to amount to a permanent nationality not dependent on residence just so long as all ancestors along the lineage never renounced their respective rights to Italian citizenship. That would imply it is a birthright, possibly?

[Predator]

That response by the_hawk beggars belief. It's actually upsetting that someone could think like that.

I appeal to OWC users here such as NB and/or GR to put him right on behalf of all sane individuals with an interest in the topic. It is anything but ill-informed rambling deserving of contempt. I'm sure Danny will be the first to admit any inaccuracy if any was confirmed, and he'd be very happy to respond to any suspicion of inaccuracy.I agree, but that would subtract from the farcical element. Where's EalingGreen gone?

[BonnieShels]

Maybe a more fitting username would be 'the_osterich'.


This would be more appropriate in that case...

http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.data.image.o/o653846b.jpg

:cool:

[geysir]

That's true, although having had a semi-cursory look at the nature of Italian nationality law in relation those who acquire it through jure sanguinis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nationality_law#Special_acquisition_of_cit izenship_through_jure_sanguinis), it would seem to amount to a permanent nationality not dependent on residence just so long as all ancestors along the lineage never renounced their respective rights to Italian citizenship. That would imply it is a birthright, possibly?

It's this bit that I think relates to Italian descendants
'Citizens of other countries descended from an ancestor (parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, etc.) born in Italy may have a claim to Italian citizenship by descent.'
Apart from 2nd generation (whose citizenship is automatic), the 3rd and 4th generation have the right to apply for citizenship. They have a blood right to apply for that citizenship but not the citizenship as a birthright.

AFAIA, article 15 applies to 1st and 2nd generation nationals.

[DannyInvincible]

That response by the_hawk beggars belief. It's actually upsetting that someone could think like that.

I appeal to OWC users here such as NB and/or GR to put him right on behalf of all sane individuals with an interest in the topic. It is anything but ill-informed rambling deserving of contempt. I'm sure Danny will be the first to admit any inaccuracy if any was confirmed, and he'd be very happy to respond to any suspicion of inaccuracy.

Another pretty dumb response, this, to the idea suggested by mystery-man 'EdwardT' that the poster who referred to the piece as neither informed nor well-researched hadn't outlined a rationale for his belief:


dont you know that you arent allowed to find any faults in this article promoted on many websites. it is the last word on the rulings and the lad seems to have many fans.

Sure, I'm approaching the issue from the perspective of an Ireland fan who supports the right of Irish nationals to play for Ireland, but honest debate on the issue and some form of intellectual engagement with the piece is exactly what I'd love to see if people feel they have valid points to counter those I've made. If there are perceived faults in it, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge and debate them. I'm confident enough in the validity of my own standpoint that I wouldn't feel the need to censor any counter-argument. I didn't even delete that link to that blog about "Prodestan" because, although patent nonsense, I often feel that resorting to such measures as censorship is almost an admission of a suspect personal standpoint. From reading my own piece, there should be no indication that I'd agree with anything in that, so I had nothing to fear as far as my own conscience was concerned, although I did acknowledge the possibility of people lazily associating the two, as, unfortunately, some on OWC decided to do. As a response, I clarified my own position in the comments beneath the piece. And I don't think anyone's said it's the last word either, but, at worst, it's an honest attempt to compile as many elements of this debate of which I'm aware into one solitary piece of prose that is accessible and should make sense if one has the time to digest it, even if there is a hint of bias. But I'm trying to defend the right of Irish nationals to play for their country against insulting and aggressive legal and cultural attack, after all.

I've been accused of partisanship, but at least I acknowledged every mention of every entity concerned by their official titles. Bar maybe the city of Derry, but you don't realise how difficult even the former was for me! :p In seriousness though, I didn't even mention the infamous and oft-recycled Neil Lennon booing incident once, because I don't actually think it's remotely relevant to the modern-day situation, nor did I go into the whole thing about the bullets being sent to McCourt and McGinn, because, as far as I know, there's no evidence whatsoever that NI fans had anything to do with those sorry affairs. I think most were pretty forthright in their condemnation anyhow. I haven't even suggested that the likes of Baird, McGinn, McCourt and Clingan have to endure even a hint of sectarian abuse when the play for NI, because the reality is that they've been broadly welcomed by NI fans in Windsor Park. If I was blinded by partisanship, I'd have probably spent half the piece ranting about red herrings and non-issues like the above, but I didn't even once. The crux of the issue comes down to one of national identity - for me, the treatment of nationalists in Windsor Park is irrelevant, whether positive or negative - and I feel the case is a sound one without feeling the need to resort to intentional deception and disingenuousness. I wouldn't support Brazil, Spain or France for the same reason that I have no interest in supporting NI. None of the aforementioned have any relevance to me as an Irish national.

[DannyInvincible]

It's this bit that I think relates to Italian descendants
'Citizens of other countries descended from an ancestor (parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, etc.) born in Italy may have a claim to Italian citizenship by descent.'
Apart from 2nd generation (whose citizenship is automatic), the 3rd and 4th generation have the right to apply for citizenship. They have a blood right to apply for that citizenship but not the citizenship as a birthright.

AFAIA, article 15 applies to 1st and 2nd generation nationals.

With the likes of Nedum Onuoha and Chinedu Vine in mind, would that be the case even if they acquire it before the age of 18?

[Gather round]

I appeal to OWC users here such as NB and/or GR to put him right on behalf of all sane individuals with an interest in the topic

Vielen dank, mein Herr. You are too kind, I'm not sure my net ramblings are always evidence of sanity :rolleyes:

I think almost all NI fans accept that anyone from there is eligible for the Republic's team given your nationality laws. Responses vary from ignore or grin and bear it, through continuing to argue around details (eg not if they've played for us as adults, please*) and ultimately hostility. It's a shame but I suspect the Hawk is just letting off steam and doesn't realy want to discuss in detail.

As Danny Invincible suggested in the long article, some journos and politicians are deliberately using the issue to stir things more generally. Nelson Mancausla, for example. He's not stupid, just sectarian (and nuts).


* what Phil T and others argued in that open letter to the IFA on OWC, basically. Why is it ludicrous, as Pred claims?

PS the Predator- Hawk spat reminds me of another big bird about to maker her entrance in Europa League round two. Serena (after Williams) has the day job of scaring pigeons away from Seaview's hallowed astroturf, but maybe she'll pounce if anything falls kindly in Fulham's penalty box? Or Runavik's, just possibly...

[DannyInvincible]

Are we talking about the AoNISC letter that was published in the Irish News? There were plenty of factual inaccuracies and falsehoods in that letter.

The full text read as follows (I'll highlight just some of the more dubious claims, hysterical nonsense and factual errors):


The Carling Cup of Nations (or Celtic Cup) has brought a number of issues relating to the Northern Ireland team, the IFA and the IFA's relationship with the FAI to the fore. While the recent boycott of the tournament by Northern Ireland fans, over their treatment by the IFA, FAI and Irish police, has attracted a good deal of publicity, it should be noted that an informal pre-existing boycott was already in place, with many supporters, including some who have followed the team to South America, the United States, the Caribbean and the farthest corners of Europe, refusing to make the short trip to Dublin to watch our team. The primary reason for this boycott is the increasing selection of Northern Ireland born or capped players by the FAI, despite their already representing Northern Ireland at all levels up to, and now including, full international.

The time has come for the IFA to make a stand against this practice; if it continues the very existence of the association and the international team is endangered. We recognise that this is not a situation of the IFA's making, that FIFA's ruling on player eligibility was challenged by the association, and that strenuous efforts have been made by the IFA, as part of its "Football For All" scheme, to ensure that football in Northern Ireland remains cross-community and teams at all levels are selected on merit alone.

FIFA's ruling has placed our country's team at a disadvantage faced by no other, namely, every single player eligible to play for us can also be selected by the FAI. The FAI's shameless exploitation of this rule to the detriment of Northern Ireland teams, and the public statements of its officials vowing to continue and expand this practice, makes cordial relations between the two associations impossible. Our objection is based on a matter of principle, that the selection of players who have played for Northern Ireland at every level - full international included – by the FAI is unethical, opportunistic and, by accident or design, sectarian, and must cease.

While we object to the precedent that the FIFA ruling, and subsequent CAS judgement, have established, we must stress that we accept that some players from Northern Ireland will choose to represent the Republic of Ireland team. This is, of course, regrettable, but we absolutely and unequivocally respect their choice. To those players considering switching allegiance, however, we say this: please do not accept a call-up from the IFA unless it is your intention to play for Northern Ireland. Your actions let down fans who give you unstinting support, waste the scarce resources of the IFA and, worst of all, deny a cap to someone who genuinely wanted it and would have been proud to accept it. Such expedient behaviour in denying another player the chance to win a cap, the highest honour in international football, is utterly unethical and reflects poorly on those who do it.

As longstanding supporters of the Northern Ireland team we urge the IFA to act upon the following proposal: it must secure a public commitment from the FAI, or a joint statement from both associations to the same effect, that it will no longer select players who have represented Northern Ireland at U19 level and above, regardless of FIFA's rules and regardless of whether or not a senior cap was won in a friendly international. This amounts to, in essence, the reintroduction of the gentleman's agreement which existed for over fifty years and worked to the mutual benefit of both associations.

If the FAI is prepared to make this commitment, the IFA must, without question, reciprocate, and not select players who have previously represented the Republic of Ireland, even if they were born in Northern Ireland; if the FAI refuses and continues to behave in its current unscrupulous and unprincipled way, behaviour which threatens the continued existence of the IFA and Northern Ireland team, then we demand that all co-operation between the two associations at all levels cease.

The forthcoming fixture between the two countries is an ideal opportunity for the associations to bring this matter to an amicable conclusion and, in the name of continued cordial relations, to publicly announce that a binding agreement on player selection has been reached. Such an agreement is in the interests of all concerned as it would strengthen and equalise the relationship between the FAI and IFA and end distractive speculation surrounding players.

If the IFA refuses to pursue this course of action, then it will have declared itself unfit to run football in Northern Ireland. In this event, its senior administrators must resign and be replaced by people who will serve the national team's best interests.

To our team which will take the field in Dublin without our usual vocal support, we are deeply sorry that we cannot be in attendance, but be assured that we are with you in spirit: Play with pride. Play with passion. Play for the shirt.

Most of it, then.

[ArdeeBhoy]

From my experience on OWC, that chap comes across as very irreconcilable. I think he was partly behind that ludicrous 'Open Letter' and petition campaign. His comments on your article are petty and childish - his first criticism was against the format of the greenscene article, because, well, he obviously had nothing important to say about the content. How could he?
Hmm, well what else would we expect?
:rolleyes:


That response by the_hawk beggars belief. It's actually upsetting that someone could think like that.

I appeal to OWC users here such as NB and/or GR to put him right on behalf of all sane individuals with an interest in the topic. It is anything but ill-informed rambling deserving of contempt. I'm sure Danny will be the first to admit any inaccuracy if any was confirmed, and he'd be very happy to respond to any suspicion of inaccuracy.
The trouble is when you're just paranoid, things like rationale and logic go out the window!

Can't speak for NB, but as GR says below his own contribution is rarely consistent of anything, besides provoking irritated bemusement.
;)


I agree, but that would subtract from the farcical element. Where's EalingGreen gone?
He's working on his next artistic project with Alex Bruce. Given the season, nothing to do with the naked flame....


You are too kind, I'm not sure my net ramblings are always evidence of sanity
You're under-selling yourself there just a bit....


I think almost all NI fans accept that anyone from there is eligible for the Republic's team given your nationality laws. Responses vary from ignore or grin and bear it, through continuing to argue around details (eg not if they've played for us as adults, please*) and ultimately hostility. It's a shame but I suspect the Hawk is just letting off steam and doesn't realy want to discuss in detail.

* what Phil T and others argued in that open letter to the IFA on OWC, basically. Why is it ludicrous, as Pred claims?
Because FIFA & the CAS Ruling have defined something else.
Given the machinations of the former and London 2012, just be grateful you still have a team....



PS the Predator- Hawk spat reminds me of another big bird about to maker her entrance in Europa League round two. Serena (after Williams) has the day job of scaring pigeons away from Seaview's hallowed astroturf, but maybe she'll pounce if anything falls kindly in Fulham's penalty box?
You'll have to post up the link I sent through for this to make any great sense??

[CraftyToePoke]

Where's EalingGreen gone?

Gone to build The Wickerman.

[DannyInvincible]

He was last seen round these parts on the 25th of March. I do hope he comes back as I had left a few things (http://foot.ie/threads/148706-Adam-Barton?p=1467996&viewfull=1#post1467996) for him to have a think about. (Yes, it's that petty.) I don't recall having seen him lately on OWC lately either, mind.

[Sullivinho]

That would imply there's actually some merit to the article to make it worth countering, meanwhile anyone with have a brain could tell for themselves its all ill-informed rambling & treat it with the contempt it deserves by ignoring it

I like to express my contempt for written documents by burning them. At the very least a forceful serve toward the waste bin.

That ignoring lark is awfully apathetic.

[DannyInvincible]

DI I wouldnt bother with the TAMB regading this matter, the engagement has been pretty poor and the thread has probably come to a natural conclusion. None are so blind as those who do not wish to see. Trying to get what their actual objection to the current rules was like teeth extraction even when linked to Barsdley but can be summed up.
1 poster - would be happy with declaration at some point 16 or 18 and no switching after - wouldnt have an issue with that TBH
1 poster - didnt accept that citizenship from birth was a link to ROI, and wanted the grandparent rule scrapped and the FIFA residency rule increased to 5 years. although to be fair if the same thing happened in Scotland as i Ireland he wouldnt offer citizenship to those left behind in a 'northern Scotland' so at least he was consistant.

As regrads logging on , I did have some difficulties myself but it was more the admin email address issue than any screening process for undesirables

To my surprise, my account was activated a few hours ago, so I just left a relatively brief response to the discussion that had been going on: http://taboard.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=129668&view=findpost&p=1939722

[geysir]

With the likes of Nedum Onuoha and Chinedu Vine in mind, would that be the case even if they acquire it before the age of 18?
I don't know about the second chap but according to the info available, Ned is a naturalised British national since he was a kid.
I'd be 99% certain he qualifies for England under art 15 and 16.
Does it matter how he qualifies? There is absolutely no doubt that he can play for England and Nigeria.
It just matters who he plays for first. He can only change to the second association under the terms of article 18.

[EastTerracer]

My own thoughts on why northern-born players suddenly decided to declare for the FAI around the mid-to-late 1990s (albeit in relatively small numbers on a yearly basis, and still so, to be honest) after no movement at all for the previous decades is as follows. Although I don't believe the Good Friday Agreement changed anything of legal substance as regards the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals to play for the FAI, I suspect its signing and the period of recognition, acceptance, reconciliation, sugar and spice and all things nice leading up to it (and since) may well have changed mindsets whereby nationalists realised or became more aware, confident, comfortable and in tune with the idea that they didn't actually have to play for a British entity if they didn't want to. Admittedly, that's just speculation on my part, but I'm attempting to understand and rationalise why switches weren't in greater number when you might have expected sectarian and political tensions to be more significant. A gentleman's agreement clearly wasn't the reason because it's pretty apparent that one didn't exist.

I think you're on the right track here Danny. The Kernaghan situation was a little different as, under the IFA's qualification rules at the time, he was not eligible to play for Northern Ireland. In this case, it seems that the FAI saw no problem in including him in FAI selections.

While it has been established that there was no "gentleman's agreement" in place there was definitely no clarity around the eligibility of those in the North to represent the FAI between 1946 and the late-90s as you have pointed out. I think its fair to assume that the FAI and the IFA weren't aware of what FIFA's rules allowed in this regard.

We know now that the Good Friday Agreement did not change anything with regard to FIFA's qualification rules but there was a change in the wording which people may have considered to be significant. Under the 1956 Act those born in the six counties after independence were "entitled" to be an Irish citizen but were not "automatically" an Irish citizen. I can only assume that the Northern-born players (e.g. Jennings, O'Neill, Armstrong, Donaghy) were all aware that they could hold Irish citizenship but never believed that they were entitled to play for the FAI. I also believe that the FAI were not aware that these players were eligible for selection. FIFA have clarified the existing rules in much greater detail in recent years.

The Kernaghan situation was probably a pivotal point as when Northern-born players saw the details of his qualification the likes of Ger Crossley asked the question about their own eligibility. I genuinely do not remember any discussion of this issue in the 70s or 80s as the players and the associations were not aware that this option was available to them (even though it seems to have been allowed under the FIFA rules).

[DannyInvincible]

I don't know about the second chap but according to the info available, Ned is a naturalised British national since he was a kid.
I'd be 99% certain he qualifies for England under art 15 and 16.
Does it matter how he qualifies? There is absolutely no doubt that he can play for England and Nigeria.

The main reason I'm interested in which article in particular it is under which certain players qualify is because it might help clarify who could actually be potentially eligible to play for us. If fourth-generation Italians are able to represent Italy (not that I'm necessarily saying they can, because both the Camoranesi and Motta examples have proved inconclusive), then we could conclude that article 15 might be more flexible than we might originally have thought as that would be the only article under which such examples possibly could qualify. It could potentially leave open the possibility of fourth-generation Irish nationals being eligible to represent Ireland.

Am I correct in assuming that anyone who assumes a nationality before the age of 18 can qualify for the association of that country? The rules don't specify such, but it would appear to be the case with regard to a lot of Switzerland's current internationals, for example, and I remember CD saying something along those lines earlier in the thread, stating that it was implicit due to the "after reaching the age of 18" clause in article 17.

Vine is a Nigerian-born Irish national. His circumstances are pretty much identical to Onuoha's, except he moved to Ireland rather than England at a young age and was raised here, so I assume, like how Onuoha qualifies to play for England, Vine qualifies to play for Ireland.

[DannyInvincible]

I think you're on the right track here Danny. The Kernaghan situation was a little different as, under the IFA's qualification rules at the time, he was not eligible to play for Northern Ireland. In this case, it seems that the FAI saw no problem in including him in FAI selections.

While it has been established that there was no "gentleman's agreement" in place there was definitely no clarity around the eligibility of those in the North to represent the FAI between 1946 and the late-90s as you have pointed out. I think its fair to assume that the FAI and the IFA weren't aware of what FIFA's rules allowed in this regard.

We know now that the Good Friday Agreement did not change anything with regard to FIFA's qualification rules but there was a change in the wording which people may have considered to be significant. Under the 1956 Act those born in the six counties after independence were "entitled" to be an Irish citizen but were not "automatically" an Irish citizen. I can only assume that the Northern-born players (e.g. Jennings, O'Neill, Armstrong, Donaghy) were all aware that they could hold Irish citizenship but never believed that they were entitled to play for the FAI. I also believe that the FAI were not aware that these players were eligible for selection. FIFA have clarified the existing rules in much greater detail in recent years.

The Kernaghan situation was probably a pivotal point as when Northern-born players saw the details of his qualification the likes of Ger Crossley asked the question about their own eligibility. I genuinely do not remember any discussion of this issue in the 70s or 80s as the players and the associations were not aware that this option was available to them (even though it seems to have been allowed under the FIFA rules).

I suppose that is another possibility. Perhaps the FAI really just weren't sure of the situation themselves and, even though there was no gentleman's agreement relating to the status of Irish nationals, had accidentally assumed that when FIFA ruled on the two jurisdictions around the 1950s that it had had some implication for the status of Irish nationals-to-be born in the IFA's jurisdiction. Who knows? Of course, it couldn't have had any future implications for them because even the 1946 dictat issued by Ivo Schricker outlined how the eligibility criterion was one reliant on players being "subjects of the country they represent".

I wonder would anyone have any contacts in the FAI from whom they could try and get an answer on this, because it is a peculiar one to my mind. I've e-mailed the FAI twice in recent times with questions relating to the eligibility issue, and Adam Barton's eligibility in particular, but didn't have much luck with a response so I dunno if there's much point going that route again.

Kernaghan would have been eligible for NI if it hadn't been for an internal agreement between the British associations not to select players via a grand-parental link. Perhaps, once the FAI saw the IFA could have no objection to his selection, they were happy to investigate and approach him. As you suggest, possibly this led to some Eureka moment within the FAI and more and more players striking upon the realisation that they were, in fact, eligible to play for Ireland. Possibly, the FAI had even feared that if they started inviting northern Irish nationals into their squads prior to the years leading up to the Good Friday Agreement, that the IFA would complain and FIFA would intervene, deem Irish nationality law irredentist and penalise the association. Although, it's not as if there's ever been an indication that FIFA would indeed have been prepared to intervene in such a situation. The federation, for example, seems content enough with the situation regarding extra-territorial Turkish citizenship for Northern Cypriots despite recognising the whole island of Cyprus as the 'de jure' territory of the Cyprus Football Association. FIFA never had any problem whatsoever with Muzzy Izzet or Kâzım Kâzım representing Turkey despite their Cypriot roots. I think your last paragraph is spot on. Even if the FAI were reluctant to cause a stir with the IFA, it would have been difficult for them to turn away Irish nationals willing to declare for them once a realisation set in.

[ifk101]

After the IFA joined FIFA in 1946, is it more or less correct to say that the FAI accepted its jurisdiction as the 26-county state that would be formally acknowledged as a republic in 1949?

Not necessarily. The FAI sought to make players born within its jurisdictation ineligible to represent the IFA "for international purposes" (letter to FIFA 1946). What constituted the FAI's and the IFA's jurisdictation wasn't clearly defined before FIFA's intervention in 1953. For example the IFA selected players on an All-Ireland basis during this time period (1946 - 1953). However FIFA did state to the FAI in 1946 that (for international purposes) "players must be subjects of the country they represent" and "players born in the area of your jurisdiction" could not represent the IFA.

The intervention of FIFA in 1953 divided the existing player pool based on place of birth and the political border on the island. This most likely mirrored the FAI's understanding of player eligibility at the time. The wording of the 1946 letter to FIFA is "players born within the area of jurisdiction".


I suppose that is another possibility. Perhaps the FAI really just weren't sure of the situation themselves and, even though there was no gentleman's agreement relating to the status of Irish nationals, had accidentally assumed that when FIFA ruled on the two jurisdictions around the 1950s that it had had some implication for the status of Irish nationals-to-be born in the IFA's jurisdiction. Who knows? Of course, it couldn't have had any future implications for them because even the 1946 dictat issued by Ivo Schricker outlined how the eligibility criterion was one reliant on players being "subjects of the country they represent".

See above comments. The FAI's understanding of eligibility was most likely based on "place of birth" (1946 FIFA letter) an understanding reinforced by the 1953 FIFA intervention which divided the island's existing playing pool based on place of birth.

Player selection to the FAI's teams at the time wasn't the most efficient. Up until the 1970's players were selected for the FAI teams by a 5 man selection committee. The make-up of the committee changed on a regular basis. Johnny Giles states in his book his disillusion with this selection process as there was no consistency in player selection and questions their abilities/ knowledge to pick the best players. If you consider how this selection committee worked, it is highly unlikely that there was any movement to evolve the understanding of Irish player eligibility beyond "place of birth" as set forth by FIFA's intervention in 1953 given the inefficiencies of the selection process and the constant change in the make-up of the selection committee.

[Not Brazil]

I appeal to OWC users here such as NB and/or GR to put him right on behalf of all sane individuals with an interest in the topic.

I no longer post on OWC, and haven't done so for several months.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Is that because you would disagree with some of your fellow fans on there?
And do they know/have they noticed? Are you likely to return?

[Not Brazil]

Is that because you would disagree with some of your fellow fans on there?
And do they know/have they noticed? Are you likely to return?

1. No.
2. I couldn't give two flying ones whether they know/have noticed or not.
3. Never say never.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Fair enough, but your answer to 1. puzzles me. But your prerogative.