Eligibility Rules, Okay

[Not Brazil]

But what about future hypothetical examples who would fall under your proposal? They tell the IFA that there is no decision to make as the FAI is their first port of call (just like you seek), until they return to the IFA a few years later declaring their interest in representing NI after failing to have represented the FAI at senior competitive level...

If there is no decision to make a player would presumably not accept a call up to the Northern ireland Under 19s...and would have the door of the FAI knocked asap?

I'll give you an example - young Boy George did the honourable thing. He has chased his dream from the start. He did not, to the best of my knowledge, make publicly disparaging comments about the IFA.

Whilst I predict he will have a big future with the FAI (if he avoids injury), and is true enough to his identity that he would not play for the IFA, if things don't work out for him and he has a change of heart, I would have him back tomorrow.

I respect that he has chased his dream from the start.

Bruce is a different kettle of fish.

[Predator]

...they could start off with the FAI at Under 19.

If that doesn't work out for them, they can switch to the IFA.Just like Alex Bruce.

[Predator]

Didn't P. George play for Northern Ireland representative teams?

[Not Brazil]

Why don't you tell why Alex Bruce is an exception as I hear he is very enthusiastic about playing for your wee country. Similar to a new call-up for the Holland game.

As I say, I don't think Bruce will ever be selected to play for Northern Ireland.

His, erm, new found enthusiasm for our cause may well be misplaced.

Whilst I am a little annoyed about one of the call ups to our squad to play Holland, I don't see anyone there who is remotely similar to Bruce.

[Not Brazil]

Didn't P. George play for Northern Ireland representative teams?

Not at Under 19 and above.

I'm not interested in anything before that.

[Not Brazil]

Just like Alex Bruce.

Mr Bruce hasn't switched, as he has not been selected to play for the IFA.

I doubt he ever will be.

[osarusan]

Multiquote it, quick!

[Not Brazil]

What am I failing to understand? You call it one thing. I just call it an oath of allegiance for lack of better wording. Jeez ....

You seem to be failing to understand the rights of a player to switch under FIFA Statutes - I don't want to do anything that breaches said Statutes, as I have said repeatedly.

Do you have a scooby doo what an "oath of allegiance" is?

What I propose involves no paperwork.

[Not Brazil]

Go on, spit it out.

Sorry, missed this earlier.

It seems that Poster Boy McClean, in between getting his photo taken with The President of the Irish Republic, had a bit of an altercation with a sniffer dog at HMP Maghaberry whilst on a visit there to see his mate, Sean Cruickshanks - the convicted murderer of a young man from Donegal*

Not the nicest of friends, if you ask me. Not sure I'd feel comfortable in that kind of company.

Good footballer though.

*As reported in the Sunday World newspaper at the weekend.

[Predator]

Mr Bruce hasn't switched, as he has not been selected to play for the IFA.

I doubt he ever will be.You make an unnecessary distinction. The fact is, when faced with a choice, Bruce chose the FAI and now that it appears to not have worked out, he has made himself available for selection by the IFA. So what you propose as a solution effectively contradicts your militant opposition to Bruce.

[Not Brazil]

You make an unnecessary distinction. The fact is, when faced with a choice, Bruce chose the FAI and now that it appears to not have worked out, he has made himself available for selection by the IFA. So what you propose as a solution effectively contradicts your militant opposition to Bruce.

Not at all.

It was the disparaging, arrogant, manner of Bruce's decision that prompts me to not want him about the place.

[osarusan]

It seems that Poster Boy McClean, in between getting his photo taken with The President of the Irish Republic, had a bit of an altercation with a sniffer dog at HMP Maghaberry whilst on a visit there to see his mate, Sean Cruickshanks - the convicted murderer of a young man from Donegal*

Not the nicest of friends, if you ask me. Not sure I'd feel comfortable in that kind of company,

I appreciate that you were asked about it, but i don't see any reason for this info to be in this thread.


So what you propose as a solution effectively contradicts your militant opposition to Bruce.NB has made it clear multiple times that Alex Bruce's disparaging comments when choosing ROI over NI are the reason he doesn't want to see Bruce in any NI squad, not the actual choice of ROI itself.

[Not Brazil]

I appreciate that you were asked about it, but i don't see any reason for this info to be in this thread.

It was posted in the context of McClean's claims that he was not comfortable in the Northern Ireland set up, and one of the reasons being there "were not too many Catholics" around.

(However many "not too many" is???)

I was making a point that some people might not be too comfortable in the company of McClean, given the type of friend he keeps.

[The Fly]

I'll give you an example - young Boy George did the honourable thing...


...he came out at a young age.

[DannyInvincible]

What else did Bruce say other than "there wasn't really a decision to make"? Is that disparaging, and why would it be different to someone like George implying through his actions (or even stating to an approaching member of the IFA in private) that there was no decision to be made?

[Predator]

NB has made it clear multiple times that Alex Bruce's disparaging comments when choosing ROI over NI are the reason he doesn't want to see Bruce in any NI squad, not the actual choice of ROI itself.Thanks for that.
In the wider context of players choosing associations and offering clarification, Bruce's comments are, frankly, tame.
Is the act of switching in itself not disparaging? It certainly is seen as such to some and I would guess, it is in a sense to NB too, otherwise he wouldn't be so annoyed about it. Ultimately, NB's indignation towards Bruce is misplaced, in my opinion.

So, then, am I to to take it that NB will happily have players who tread an identical association path as Bruce, so long as they don't make any insinuation whatsoever, however factual or honest, that the Northern Ireland team is inferior?

[Predator]

What else did Bruce say other than "there wasn't really a decision to make"? Is that disparaging, and why would it be different to someone like George implying through his actions (or even stating to an approaching member of the IFA in private) that there was no decision to be made?
Beat me to it!

[Predator]

Edit to Predator.

No, don't have the time or inclination...Ah come on AB. Judging by the amount of posts you have, you're like the rest of us, you have too much time on your hands. Come on, join in with the real fun.

[ifk101]

You seem to be failing to understand the rights of a player to switch under FIFA Statutes - I don't want to do anything that breaches said Statutes, as I have said repeatedly.

The only confusion I have is your determination to spam with a Northern Ireland FA proposal that has absolutely no relevance us.

[Not Brazil]

What else did Bruce say other than "there wasn't really a decision to make"? Is that disparaging, and why would it be different to someone like George implying through his actions (or even stating to an approaching member of the IFA in private) that there was no decision to be made?



So, then, am I to to take it that NB will happily have players who tread an identical association path as Bruce, so long as they don't make any insinuation whatsoever, however factual or honest, that the Northern Ireland team is inferior?

You guys seem to be rather hung up on my dislike of Alex Bruce :D

An Englishman, who chose to play for the South (because he wasn't good enough for England) including at Senior International level, made disparaging comments about Northern Ireland and now is "enthusiastic" (apparantly) about playing for Northern Ireland.

Not to my taste. He can do one.

Better players, more deserving of the shirt.

Now, under my proposals, the IFA meet with a young adult player to discuss how he hopes his international career pans out. They (the IFA) openly and honestly discuss the options available with the potential player, as per FIFA eligibility Statutes. They involve the parents, if appropriate.

If the young player is FAI minded, ie. that's who he would aspire to represent at senior international level, the IFA, through close association with FAI underage development personnel, facilitate the player being introduced to the FAI - with their best wishes.

The player goes on his merry way - chasing his dream.

Some time down the line, the young player realises he isn't going to realise his dream - he remembers the IFA doing right by him and helping him to chase his dream. He contacts the IFA and lets it be known that he would be interested in a switch. The IFA make a decision as to if and how the player would fit into their plans, geared towards the senior international squad.


A mature, socially responsible, way of dealing with the issue - to the benefit of all parties.

[Not Brazil]

The only confusion I have is your determination to spam with a Northern Ireland FA proposal that has absolutely no relevance us.

Aye, right enough, the choices of young Northern Irish born players, pertaining to their international careers are of no relevance (or interest) whatsoever to you.

Boy, you are confused.

[ifk101]

Aye, right enough, the choices of young Northern Irish born players, pertaining to their international careers are of no relevance (or interest) whatsoever to you.

Boy, you are confused.

But it's not binding! Players, like McClean, can continue to use the north as a stepping stone in their career if they so choose. Your proposal doesn't stop players switching. It has no relevance to us.

[Not Brazil]

But it's not binding! Players, like McClean, can continue to use the north as a stepping stone in their career if they so choose. Your proposal doesn't stop players switching.

By jove, I think you're learning.

You are absolutely correct.

However, if a young adult indicates to the Irish Football Association that he aspires to play for the Irish Football Association at Senior International level, and then switches (as is his right) stating it was always his dream to play for the south, he's an unprincipled liar, lacking any honour and credability.

We would be well rid of players like that - just as I believe we are absolutely well rid of the likes of McClean.

The relevance to you of my proposal is that it may mean more players into the FAI system, earlier.

Good for us, good for you.

Happy Days.

[ifk101]

Good for us, good for you.

Happy Days.

It's good for us as it. Thanks. We're on way to Poland, you are on your way to a hammering in Holland.

What would make it better for both parties is the FAI taking a dual role in the training and development of players born in the north. This is good for you as you can weed out the nationalists/ republicans earlier. It's good for us as we field competitive sides from the age of 17 and greater access to our playing pool at the earlier age possible is only of benefit for our chances of winning games and qualifying for championships.

What do think of my proposal?

[Not Brazil]

It's good for us as it. Thanks. We're on way to Poland, you are on your way to a hammering in Holland.

What would make it better for both parties is the FAI taking a dual role in the training and development of players born in the north. This is good for you as you can weed out the nationalists/ republicans earlier. It's good for us as we field competitive sides from the age of 17 and greater access to our playing pool at the earlier age possible is only of benefit for our chances of winning games and qualifying for championships.

What do think of my proposal?

Don't rest on your laurels.

It's an interesting proposal.

How would that work in practice?

How would you envisage this dual role in training and development unfolding?

There'd be a bit of switching to the IFA involved down the line with your proposals, but, hey, that's fine.

I'm all for exploring ways to have players playing for Northern Ireland at Under 19 and above who aspire to playing senior international football for us.

We were told by a lot of the south's fans to concentrate on players who wanted to play for Northern Ireland - that was very good advice, which I have been happy to take on board.

[ifk101]

How would that work in practice?

The FAI has a network of regional development centres for players aged 11 onwards. This could be expanded to include the north.


How would you envisage this dual role in training and development unfolding?

The regional centres in the north can be operated by both the FAI and the Northern Ireland FA.

[Not Brazil]

The FAI has a network of regional development centres for players aged 11 onwards. This could be expanded to include the north.


The regional centres in the north can be operated by both the FAI and the Northern Ireland FA.


I'm warming to the idea.

The world wouldn't cave in if the Football Association of the Republic Of Ireland threw a few cones out for kids on Northern Irish territory.

Alternatively, why don't the Football Association of the Republic of Ireland lobby schools in Northern Ireland to send players to their development centres in the south?

Or, perhaps they do?

[Not Brazil]

If the IFA went back to FIFA to lobby to have their (FIFA's) previous suggestion to allow Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland to play for Northern Ireland put in place - and were successful - that would bring Article 6 of the FIFA Eligibility Statutes into play.

I'm hearing whispers of such an approach being considered.

Not in favour myself.

[DannyInvincible]

I'm warming to the idea.

The world wouldn't cave in if the Football Association of the Republic Of Ireland threw a few cones out for kids on Northern Irish territory.

Alternatively, why don't the Football Association of the Republic of Ireland lobby schools in Northern Ireland to send players to their development centres in the south?

Or, perhaps they do?

How do you think they'd feel about such an idea at the Northern Irish Football Association? ;)

[Not Brazil]

How do you think they'd feel about such an idea at the Northern Irish Football Association? ;)

Get it right you - it's the Northern Ireland Football Association.;)

On past experience, I'm not sure they'd know it was happening.:D

[DannyInvincible]

If the IFA went back to FIFA to lobby to have their (FIFA's) previous suggestion to allow Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland to play for Northern Ireland put in place - and were successful - that would bring Article 6 of the FIFA Eligibility Statutes into play.

I'm hearing whispers of such an approach being considered.

Not in favour myself.

I can't imagine that that proposal would actually have led to the invoking of article 6 in the way you suggest it might have had it been passed. FIFA appeared content to legislate for the situation uniquely, unless I'm reading things incorrectly. How else would they have enabled a player born anywhere on the island to play for either association (which is exactly what they proposed)?:


"(...) every player born on the territory of Northern Ireland, holding the UK nationality and being entitled to a passport of the Republic of Ireland or born on the territory of the Republic of Ireland and holding the Irish nationality could either play for the [FAI] or the [IFA], under the condition that all other relevant prerequisites pertaining to player’s eligibility for a specific Association team are fulfilled".

What exactly are they referring to when they mention "all other relevant prerequisites"? They can't be referring to territory of birth (as mentioned in article 6) because they've already outlined that those born in the state of Ireland in possession of Irish nationality (alone?) would be eligible to play for the IFA under the proposal. I mean, why would they propose something if it wasn't going to become a reality due to an inevitable catch (article 6)?

[Not Brazil]

I can't imagine that that proposal would actually have led to the invoking of article 6 in the way you suggest it might have had it been passed.

What exactly are they referring to when they mention "all other relevant prerequisites"? They can't be referring to territory of birth (as mentioned in article 6) because they've already outlined that those born in the state of Ireland in possession of Irish nationality (alone?) would be eligible to play for the IFA under the proposal. I mean, why would they propose something if it wasn't going to become a reality due to an inevitable catch (article 6)?

I sincerely hope the IFA do not pursue this strategy.

However, there appears to be an inconsistency in your arguement here.

When it has been suggested, much earlier in the debate, that the IFA should be seeking a change to the existing Statutes to reflect the unique nature of the dispute (when they wanted them upheld:o), it was pleaded by the FAI supporters that the rules applicable to everyone else on eligibility should apply to them.

Now, you suggest that FIFA should legislate uniquely on the matter, if Citizens of the Republic of Ireland were deemed eligible to play for Northern Ireland.

Why should the FAI be treated any differently to any other National Association on eligibility?

[DannyInvincible]

However, there appears to be an inconsistency in your arguement here.

When it has been suggested, much earlier in the debate, that the IFA should be seeking a change to the existing Statutes to reflect the unique nature of the dispute (when they wanted them upheld:o), it was pleaded by the FAI supporters that the rules applicable to everyone else on eligibility should apply to them.

I don't think I ever argued that the IFA should not be allowed to lobby for some rule-change to suit what they might view as a unique situation. In fact, I always said that's what they should have done, as they were more than entitled to do so - like the north African francophone associations lobbied to lift the age-cap of 21 on switching association once - rather than wasting their time going down the ill-advised "FIFA are misinterpreting their own rules" track to CAS.


Now, you suggest that FIFA should legislate uniquely on the matter, if Citizens of the Republic of Ireland were deemed eligible to play for Northern Ireland.

Why should the FAI be treated any differently to any other National Association on eligibility?

I'm not saying they should. I'm content with the situation as it is; Irish nationals born north of the border are entitled to play for the FAI. I was merely saying that it appears FIFA were prepared to legislate uniquely on the matter. Would you disagree? They would had to have done in order to prevent the proposal offered from falling foul of the already-existing article 6 (or article 16, as it was then). Such a proposal wouldn't make logical sense otherwise.

And the proposal wasn't offered to treat the FAI differently; it was proposed to treat the IFA differently, in order to appease them. The solution offered wouldn't have changed anything for the FAI with regard to the eligibility of Irish nationals born north of the border being entitled to declare for them. They had been prior and would still have been after. The proposal, rather, would have created an anomaly or unique situation favouring the IFA whereby the citizens of an external jurisdiction were entitled to represent the IFA on the basis or by virtue of their citizenship of that external jurisdiction. No member of FIFA benefits in such a way under the current rules. The FAI were willing to accept that proposal, also to appease to IFA, but the IFA rejected it.

[ArdeeBhoy]

I think the fly is suggesting (unlike his superior intelligence) that you wouldn't have the time, inclination or intelligence

I think that's what he was really trying to get at

Maybe. Personally think he's taken a bump on the head given the amount of mutual cosying up to his 'new best friend' on here.
:eek:



http://z5.ifrm.com/5902/57/0/e14492//e14492.gif


With the British Virgin Islands, an overseas territory, in 199 to keep you company?

AB will like that. :rolleyes:

See what I mean....



Multiquote it, quick!

Hmm, you're asking way too much.


It was posted in the context of McClean's claims that he was not comfortable in the Northern Ireland set up, and one of the reasons being there "were not too many Catholics" around.

(However many "not too many" is???)

I was making a point that some people might not be too comfortable in the company of McClean, given the type of friend he keeps.
Surely it's obvious;not a lot.

As for not being 'too comfortable' in his company, I'm sure there's many people with 'undesirable' acquaintances.
Some of them even from outside 'the North'. Shock horror!

[ArdeeBhoy]

Ah come on AB. Judging by the amount of posts you have, you're like the rest of us, you have too much time on your hands. Come on, join in with the real fun.

Heh, unlike some on here I say "Why keep a dog and bark yourself"...

;)

[ifk101]

And the proposal wasn't offered to treat the FAI differently; it was proposed to treat the IFA differently, in order to appease them.

A bizarre proposal of the part of FIFA, in the context of the countless years the FAI lobbied FIFA on the issue of the Northern Ireland FA selecting its players. Even more bizarre was the FAI's willingness to agree. :-) But I suppose the FAI is an association that is far more comfortable in its relations with its northeast counterparts these days.

[ArdeeBhoy]

As in, 'spot on' as ever, by the post immediately before mine in reply to NB.

[Not Brazil]

I'm not saying they should. I'm content with the situation as it is; Irish nationals born north of the border are entitled to play for the FAI. I was merely saying that it appears FIFA were prepared to legislate uniquely on the matter. Would you disagree? They would had to have done in order to prevent the proposal offered from falling foul of the already-existing article 6 (or article 16, as it was then). Such a proposal wouldn't make logical sense otherwise.

And the proposal wasn't offered to treat the FAI differently; it was proposed to treat the IFA differently, in order to appease them. The solution offered wouldn't have changed anything for the FAI with regard to the eligibility of Irish nationals born north of the border being entitled to declare for them. They had been prior and would still have been after.

If FIFA were to decree that Citizens of the Irish Republic were eligible, on that Citizenship alone, to represent the IFA, Article 6 would come into play as things stand.

The argument I'm picking up on is if Irish Nationals want absolute equality with British Nationals viz a viz eligibility, Article 6 would be applicable in such a scenario ie. a Nationality enabling a player to represent more than one Association.

Such a move would change everything for the FAI in the context of the current rules.

[DannyInvincible]

If FIFA were to decree that Citizens of the Irish Republic were eligible, on that Citizenship alone, to represent the IFA, Article 6 would come into play as things stand.

Indeed, it would if article 6 was left as it was to apply to the situation, but why would FIFA offer such a proposal if they intended to leave article 6 applicable? That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. It would render the proposal meaningless.


The argument I'm picking up on is if Irish Nationals want absolute equality with British Nationals viz a viz eligibility, Article 6 would be applicable in such a scenario ie. a Nationality enabling a player to represent more than one Association.

Who wants Irish nationals to have absolute equality with British nationals viz a viz eligibility though? I'm not sure who was/is arguing for that. FIFA merely proposed it to keep the IFA quiet.

[Not Brazil]

Indeed, it would if article 6 was left as it was to apply to the situation, but why would FIFA offer such a proposal if they intended to leave article 6 applicable?

Who wants Irish nationals to have absolute equality with British nationals viz a viz eligibility though? I'm not sure who was/is arguing for that.

Why should FIFA make special rules for the island of Ireland?

Article 6 is what it is - it is designed to cover situations whereby a singular Nationality would entitle a player to represent more than one Association.

If Citizenship of the Republic Of Irelad entitled a player to play for 2 Associations, Article 6 must apply? No?

It appears you don't subscribe to a broad equality agenda, preferring different rules for British & Irish Citizens.

[CraftyToePoke]

If the IFA went back to FIFA to lobby to have their (FIFA's) previous suggestion to allow Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland to play for Northern Ireland put in place - and were successful - that would bring Article 6 of the FIFA Eligibility Statutes into play.

I'm hearing whispers of such an approach being considered.

Not in favour myself.

At what stage is this? Do you see it actually coming to pass?

[DannyInvincible]

Why should FIFA make special rules for the island of Ireland?

I'm not saying they should do anything. They presumably thought doing so would appease the IFA, however.


Article 6 is what it is - it is designed to cover situations whereby a singular Nationality would entitle a player to represent more than one Association.

If Citizenship of the Republic Of Irelad entitled a player to play for 2 Associations, Article 6 must apply? No?

That's correct. But Irish citizenship doesn't entitle a player to play for more than one association. The only circumstance under which it would have would have been had the IFA accepted FIFA's proposal. However, to have any meaning whatsoever, FIFA's proposal would also have logically necessitated extra legislation of some sort to render the Irish situation exempt from the application of article 6. What would have been the logic behind FIFA expressly proposing to allow northern-born Irish nationals to continue playing for the FAI if the actual effect of the proposal would have taken that possibility away from these Irish nationals?


It appears you don't subscribe to a broad equality agenda, preferring different rules for British & Irish Citizens.

The broad equality agenda? That's not something with which I'm familiar and I'm not really sure where you're going with this. In the sense that article 5 applies to Irish citizens and article 6 applies to British citizens, you mean? Does anyone have a problem with that? Irish citizenship is allocated by the Irish state; not the British state (or Stormont government). Article 6 is a necessary exception to the general eligibility principle for the British associations (or any other associations that share a nationality) because they share British citizenship and thus extra criteria are required to decipher eligibility for those associations. That is a problem for the British associations (although I understood this to be broadly accepted, no?) as a result of their exceptional status within FIFA; not the problem of the FAI. I don't see how a player could play for the IFA by virtue of his possession of citizenship of an external jurisdiction, unless FIFA were to enforce such a peculiar anomaly whereby this particular external citizenship would then become one shared by the IFA and the association of the external jurisdiction for no rational reason other than to keep the IFA quiet.

[Not Brazil]

At what stage is this? Do you see it actually coming to pass?

It's at the stage of some "movers and shakers" weighing up the pros and cons, I believe.

I really, really, hope it doesn't come to pass.

[CraftyToePoke]

It's at the stage of some "movers and shakers" weighing up the pros and cons, I believe.

I really, really, hope it doesn't come to pass.

Because it would move things closer to a one team situation ?

[Not Brazil]

In the sense that article 5 applies to Irish citizens and article 6 applies to British citizens, you mean? Does anyone have a problem with that? Irish citizenship is allocated by the Irish state; not the British state (or Stormont government). Article 6 is a necessary exception to the general eligibility principle for the British associations (or any other associations that share a nationality) because they share British citizenship and thus extra criteria are required to decipher eligibility for those associations. That is a problem for the British associations (although I understood this to be broadly accepted, no?) as a result of their exceptional status within FIFA; not the problem of the FAI.

You're waffling a bit Danny.

Read Article 6.

Then consider the impact of an Irish Citizen being eligible to represent more than one Association.

[geysir]

The statutes may not require it, but I don't see how they forbid it either. Associations are permitted to do whatever they like as long as they don't fall foul of the statutes, aren't they?
Maybe so, however it might inspire another FIFA statute, thats the way FIFA responds when an association goes underhand.


I had a search earlier for a comment from FIFA/UEFA on the matter, but it appears it was dealt with internally in France. Whilst morally objectionable, I don't see how it would have fallen foul of the eligibility statutes, however, unless it was to prevent a player switching to the FFF from another association, but my understanding is that that was not the purpose of the supposed proposal.
The purpose of the FFF proposal was to put a racial quota on entrants into their football academy because of the high % of immigrant academy graduates choosing the country of their parents/grandparents. I don't think that proposal sat pretty with FIFA (or any moralist) regardless of constitutional compatibility, but I presume FIFA were content to stay away from the issue as long as the association deals with the matter.


There are undoubtedly practical problems, but, as I've said, that's the business of the IFA. If they want to go ahead with it, be it fruitful for them or reckless, it doesn't bother me. I'm not sure why Ireland fans care so much.
Having an inquisition to determine the extent of future football loyalty in a dual national statelet as a criteria for acceptance, does appear to be too bizarre even for the IFA, but you never know. The IFA and their fans have not let us down for entertainment factor so far.

[Not Brazil]

Because it would move things closer to a one team situation ?

It would certainly raise some eyebrows from afar in that regard.

A one team situation is off the agenda now, given that the current rules allow anyone born in Northern Ireland to have a choice.

That right of choice must be upheld.

[DannyInvincible]

You're waffling a bit Danny.

Read Article 6.

Then consider the impact of an Irish Citizen being eligible to represent more than one Association.

If Irish citizenship became a shared one and the statutes were left as they are at present, I know what impact that would have upon Irish nationals born north of the border; they'd no longer be eligible to play for the FAI. That's clearly not what FIFA were proposing to the FAI and IFA though in 2007 considering they suggested as part of the proposal that "every player born on the territory of Northern Ireland, holding the UK nationality and being entitled to a passport of the Republic of Ireland ... could [continue to] either play for the [FAI] or the [IFA]". They obviously didn't intend article 6 to apply to their proposal.


Maybe so, however it might inspire another FIFA statute, thats the way FIFA responds when an association goes underhand.

It might well, but as no rule would be broken literally, the IFA would first have to breach what FIFA deem to be the purpose of their statutes. Until then, we can only speculate that FIFA would deem such a strategy underhand.


The purpose of the FFF proposal was to put a racial quota on entrants into their football academy because of the high % of immigrant academy graduates choosing the country of their parents/grandparents. I don't think that proposal sat pretty with FIFA (or any moralist) regardless of constitutional compatibility, but I presume FIFA were content to stay away from the issue as long as the association deals with the matter.

Ignoring the morality of it, of what rule would it have fallen foul though?

[Not Brazil]

Having an inquisition to determine the extent of future football loyalty in a dual national statelet as a criteria for acceptance, does appear to be too bizarre even for the IFA, but you never know.

A FIFA member Association having a mature and socially responsible chat with young adults about their future international aspirations is deemed a bridge too far by "geysir".

If wanting to focus development on players who hold ambitions of playing senior international football for a small Association in the face of competition from a larger Association is a crime, I'm guilty as charged.

I will not be making any apology for it though, because that's what we were told to do by the likes of geysir.

[Not Brazil]

If Irish citizenship became a shared one and the statutes were left as they are at present, I know what impact that would have upon Irish nationals born north of the border; they'd no longer be eligible to play for the FAI.


Therein lies the thrust of the rumblings I'm hearing - couched with cries of "equality".