Eligibility Rules, Okay

[geysir]

Of course.
Then you should have acknowledged that simple fact instead of stating this nonsense

"Rules pertaining to players with a nationality entitling them to represent more than one Association (for example, British Citizens) were already in place in the Statutes in November 2007 - Article 15, Paragraph 3."

Which indicated you hadn't a clue



And the relevance of the "difference" in November 2007 when FIFA made their ridiculous proposal, in the context of the discussion is what, exactly?

The relevance of that difference is that it supports what I wrote, and countered your claim in which you stated
,"all saliant eligibilty rules pertaining the the Irish dispute - at the time of the FIFA prosposal in November 2007 - where contained on page 60 of the FIFA Statutes applicable at that time."

Clearly to any acute student of the eligibility debate, Article 16 was a highly relevant issue in the whole eligibility debate, it formed a large part of the IFA case to CAS.
It was not present in the statutes in 2007 when FIFA made their proposal, it was incorporated afterwards in 2008.

You, for some reason sought to dispute this and made an almighty fuss, complete with condescension and haughtiness.


If the FIFA proposal of November 2007 was put back on the table now, what's the difference in consequences?
Be more specific with your question.

And in future please make the effort to refrain from snide personal comments to any poster on this board.

[Closed Account]

Big difference, as it transpires.
What's the difference?
If it's the addition of Article 16 as it is now. That was part of the eligibility rules at the time, it just wasn't on page 60 of the statutes. It was in the Annexe 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005).

[geysir]

NB claimed it was already there in the 2007 statutes and lost the run of himself and made a big issue out of nothing

[Closed Account]

NB claimed it was already there in the 2007 statutes and lost the run of himself and made a big issue out of nothing
Don't worry, I've been following. Clearly not all relevant eligibility rules were contained on ONE page - page 60. As you've said already,
Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
circular no. 901 dated 19 March 2004 and
circular no. 1093 dated 21 June2007
were all part of eligibility rules just not included in the statutes at the time.

[Not Brazil]

Clearly to any acute student of the eligibility debate, Article 16 was a highly relevant issue in the whole eligibility debate, it formed a large part of the IFA case to CAS.
It was not present in the statutes in 2007 when FIFA made their proposal, it was incorporated afterwards in 2008.

In the context of a discussion on a FIFA proposal in November 2007, Article 16 is not "highly relevant" - as it was not introduced until 2008.

In the context of a discussion on the consequences of FIFA's proposal in 2007, the IFA's case to CAS, based on Article 16 (as applicable in 2009) is, therefore irrelevant.

These are basic facts of logic - which you concede.

I don't claim to be an "acute student of the eligibility debate" (cringe!).

I am an interested observer in the eligibility debate, willing to offer and discuss my opinions with those with different opinions.

[Not Brazil]

Don't worry, I've been following. Clearly not all relevant eligibility rules were contained on ONE page - page 60. As you've said already,
Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
circular no. 901 dated 19 March 2004 and
circular no. 1093 dated 21 June2007
were all part of eligibility rules just not included in the statutes at the time.

In what way were they relevant to the "Irish dispute"?

[DannyInvincible]

In what way were they relevant to the "Irish dispute"?

What is now article 6 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes was then article 1.1 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of players. It related to shared nationalities and was the same in effect then as it is now. FIFA's 2007 proposal to make Irish nationality a shared nationality would had to have been exempt from this regulation to operate as expressly intended.

[Closed Account]

In what way were they relevant to the "Irish dispute"?
Annexe 2 above is effectively Article 16, and affected eligibility as much as article 16 does now. Nothing has changed since 07, just annexes and circulars being included in the wording of the statutes. The rules are still the same.

[Not Brazil]

What is now article 6 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes was then article 1.1 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of players.

Could you kindly post a copy of that DI?

Circulars 901 and 1093, as cited by Joe, seem irrelevant to me, in context.

Edit: Forget that request DI- got it!

[DannyInvincible]

Could you kindly post a copy of that DI?

Circulars 901 and 1093, as cited by Joe, seem irrelevant to me, in context.

The relevant information/chronology is outlined between paragraphs 60 and 64 of the Kearns judgment.

Here are the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/01/06/30/78/statusinhalt_en_122007.pdf

Scroll down to page 30 for Annexe 2.

[Not Brazil]

as much as article 16 does now.

Article 16 is Article 6 now.

[Olé Olé]

I really must get into the analysis of the legislation a bit more.

DI, what are the key FIFA statutes that govern player eligibility?

[Not Brazil]

If it's the addition of Article 16 as it is now. That was part of the eligibility rules at the time, it just wasn't on page 60 of the statutes. It was in the Annexe 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005).

I stand corrected Joe - the salient eligibility rules, as pertaining to the Irish dispute, we're effectively contained on two pages, not one.

I had overlooked Annex 2.

Circular 901 in 2004 dealt with players acquiring a new nationality.

Circular 1093 in 2007 basically strengthened Article 15 Para 1, to close a loophole regarding temporary nationality.

I would contest that neither were core to the Irish dispute in November 2007 - I don't believe the IFA ever contested that Republic Of Ireland Nationals born in Northern Ireland were acquiring a new nationality, or that the nature of their
Citizenship of the Republic of Ireland was not permanent.



What is now article 6 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes was then article 1.1 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of players. It related to shared nationalities and was the same in effect then as it is now. FIFA's 2007 proposal to make Irish nationality a shared nationality would had to have been exempt from this regulation to operate as expressly intended.

Thanks for the clarification DI.

I find it quite incredible that FIFA were prepared, for the sake of Republic Of Ireland Nationals, to create an inequality (discrimination) in their eligibility rules - as you suggest.

Every Nationality in the world which would ordinarily permit a player to play for more than one Association treated differently, and disadvantageously, to Republic Of Ireland Nationals.

That simply would have been an explosion waiting to happen, and in total breach of FIFA own Statutes on discrimination.

[Closed Account]

Article 16 is Article 6 now.
Thanks, I was aware of that, typo.

I would contest that neither were core to the Irish dispute in November 2007.
Agreed, I only mentioned 901 and 1093 as part of a full quote, and I didn'nt mention them in a reply to you, but in the reply to geysir. Anyway, glad it's all been cleared up.

[geysir]

In the context of a discussion on a FIFA proposal in November 2007, Article 16 is not "highly relevant" - as it was not introduced until 2008.In the context of a discussion on the consequences of FIFA's proposal in 2007, the IFA's case to CAS, based on Article 16 (as applicable in 2009) is, therefore irrelevant.

I have thoroughly explained that article 16 was incorporated into the FIFA statutes in May 2008. Before that date it was contained in a separate document.
This you sought to dispute.
And now you chose to dispute the relevancy of article 16 in the Irish dispute, in a debate on one nationality representing two or more association,
which is the core issue on the FIFA compromise in 2007. And the relevance of article 16 in the IFA case to CAS which is also a part of the discussion.
Article 6 as it is now known, has had a relevancy all along, even when it was not incorporated into the statutes. The core details of the FIFA compromise of 2007 proves that relevancy beyond doubt.

I have stated, that I believed the FIFA legal board were serious when they offered this 2007 compromise, they believed with the benefit of their legal knowledge that it would pass legal scrutiny as long as the two associations willingly entered into the agreement. The agreement would be cocooned from the statutes.
And they believed that they did not have to change the statutes in order for it to work.
As the Irish dispute is a unique situation, to some extent allows for those possibilities to happen. In 2007 the most similar eligibility rule was the UK agreement, that UK agreement was contained in a separate document away from the statutes, yet it had statute status.

Maybe it has relevancy or maybe no relevancy at all, but FIFA chose to move that 1993 UK agreement into the statutes in 2008, and this was an agreement which predated other annexed document. My point was simple, maybe in 2007 a separate unique agreement could be made and cocooned but maybe not possible to have an unique agreement after 2008 when the statutes and annexed documents were incorporated

[ArdeeBhoy]

Every Nationality in the world which would ordinarily permit a player to play for more than one Association treated differently, and disadvantageously, to Republic Of Ireland Nationals.


Point of Information;It's Irish Nationals...

[DannyInvincible]

I find it quite incredible that FIFA were prepared, for the sake of Republic Of Ireland Nationals, to create an inequality (discrimination) in their eligibility rules - as you suggest.

It was indeed an incredible proposal but I see no reason to suspect they were bull****ting. I dunno if it's entirely correct to frame it as being for the sake of Irish nationals though, as if to suggest either the FAI or Irish nationals sought this inequality. Rather, it was an attempt on FIFA's misguided behalf to appease the IFA and, had it come to pass, would have created an anomaly favouring them over all other associations who would naturally have been the representatives of a mere one nationality as standard. In saying that, the IFA didn't seek it either and went as far as rejecting it.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Exactly. A problem which never happened.

[DannyInvincible]

Maybe it has relevancy or maybe no relevancy at all, but FIFA chose to move that 1993 UK agreement into the statutes in 2008, and this was an agreement which predated other annexed document. My point was simple, maybe in 2007 a separate unique agreement could be made and cocooned but maybe not possible to have an unique agreement after 2008 when the statutes and annexed documents were incorporated

I don't see why that should be the case. When previous circulars or annexes were passed, the statutes as they then would have existed would have amounted to the incorporation or bringing together of even earlier circulars and annexes, or documents similar in effect. In essence, FIFA can pass addenda whenever they like, surely? They've never stated that the present rules are the final edit, if you will, and will be subject to no further changes. If FIFA see a need for amendment, I'd imagine they'll happily pass an addendum.

[DannyInvincible]

I really must get into the analysis of the legislation a bit more.

DI, what are the key FIFA statutes that govern player eligibility?

The rules that presently govern eligibility are to be found in articles 5 to 8 of the 2011 Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/01/48/60/05/fifastatuten2011_e.pdf

(Is that file working properly for others? Hasn't been loading properly for me the past two days.)

If that doesn't work, here's the 2010 edition: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/01/29/85/71/fifastatuten2010_e.pdf

You'll find what are now articles 5 to 8 on page 66. They were then named articles 15 to 18.

What is now article 5 outlines the general principle of eligibility. Article 6 governs eligibility for associations who share a nationality, such as the FA, SFA, IFA and FAW who all share the British nationality, and invokes additional criteria requiring their players to satisfy a territorial connection. Article 7 deals with players who acquire a new nationality and article 8 deals with players switching association.

Circulars and annexes that have been mentioned above have more or less been addenda or amendments FIFA have made over the years that have since been incorporated into the overall rules.

There's a Wikipedia article featuring a general overview of some modern changes, such as the introduction of the right to switch association once before the age of 21 in 2004 and the later lifting in 2009 of that age-cap of 21 to allow players to switch once at any age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_eligibility_rules#Modern_changes

Although obviously tinged with other factors and complexities, I suspect that rule-change to be one of the most significant causes of the greater numbers of northern-born Irish nationals (from zero in the decades prior to the 1990s to two or three per year post-2004) declaring for the FAI in recent years and outlined my reasoning here: http://backpagefootball.com/general/so-what-did-prompt-northerners-declarations-for-fai/

Given Wiki's nature, just be careful to double-check anything you read there though. It states, for example:


"There are no restrictions on players that wish to switch national associations at youth level. Alex Zahavi has represented the Israel under-21s, the United States under-20s, the Portugal under-19s, the Portugal under-18s and the Portugal under-17s."

I don't think that's actually correct. There are, of course, restrictions, but they apply to competitive fixtures obviously. Likewise, we're not certain what exactly effects a player's solitary switch; whether it is any competitive fixture for his new association or merely a senior competitive fixture...

To be honest, however, if one wants to understand the eligibility statutes and their historical development since the 1950s, especially in relation to Ireland, the Court of Arbitration for Sport did a fantastic job of explaining the exact application and interpretation of each statute in the 2010 case of IFA v. FAI, Kearns and FIFA: http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4385/5048/0/Award202071.pdf

CAS was dealing with the regulations when they were articles 15 to 18 so will refer to them as such. The text of the articles is still identical, but I'd recommend a read of the judgment from page 11 onward. The whole thing could be read in an afternoon actually. Scroll through some of the headings and you'll find where they clarify the meaning behind each statute.

[Not Brazil]

It was indeed an incredible proposal but I see no reason to suspect they were bull****ting. I dunno if it's entirely correct to frame it as being for the sake of Irish nationals though, as if to suggest either the FAI or Irish nationals sought this inequality. Rather, it was an attempt on FIFA's misguided behalf to appease the IFA and, had it come to pass, would have created an anomaly favouring them over all other associations who would naturally have been the representatives of a mere one nationality as standard. In saying that, the IFA didn't seek it either and went as far as rejecting it.

An anomaly that would have threw the fundamental basis of eligibility out of the window.

The notion that someone without British Nationality could play for a British Association is, frankly, absurd.

Likewise, decreeing that Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland alone would make a player eligible for Northern Ireland - ie. Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland becoming a de facto "shared nationality" in the context of FiFA eligibility Statutes - without the provisos that apply to all other shared nationalities, is outrageous.

[geysir]

I don't see why that should be the case. When previous circulars or annexes were passed, the statutes as they then would have existed would have amounted to the incorporation or bringing together of even earlier circulars and annexes, or documents similar in effect. In essence, FIFA can pass addenda whenever they like, surely? They've never stated that the present rules are the final edit, if you will, and will be subject to no further changes. If FIFA see a need for amendment, I'd imagine they'll happily pass an addendum.

Whether it is the case or not is just a point of discussion, namely the significance of incorporating a unique separate agreement into the Statutes after sitting 15 years on the sidelines.
Is it now the practice or not to have everything incorporated fully into the statutes?
The fact that a unique situation like the UK passport eligible for 4 associations could be addressed from 1993 up until 2008 with any direct refernence to it in the Statutes gives me a clear enough indication that the FIFA legal board thought they could address the Irish situation with a similar document in 2007.

[Not Brazil]

gives me a clear enough indication that the FIFA legal board thought they could address the Irish situation with a similar document in 2007.

Do you honestly believe that introducing a unique rule, creating an inequality (discrimination) against all other Nationalities that would ordinarily allow a player to pay for more than one Association, was ever going to get off the ground?

FIFA's Legal Department would certainly have been busy.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Likewise, decreeing that Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland alone would make a player eligible for Northern Ireland - ie. Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland becoming a de facto "shared nationality" in the context of FiFA eligibility Statutes - without the provisos that apply to all other shared nationalities, is outrageous.
Er, there is no such thing as this. If you're going to post stuff at least make it factually correct.

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=267

[geysir]

Do you honestly believe that introducing a unique rule, creating an inequality (discrimination) against all other Nationalities that would ordinarily allow a player to pay for more than one Association, was ever going to get off the ground?

FIFA's Legal Department would certainly have been busy.

As the Irish situation is a unique situation, I trust in the acumen of the FIFA legal department and that they would be able to construct a document,
an agreement regarding the eligibility of international players born on the island of Ireland, without any fuss or the least bit of controversy, in 2007.

The FIFA legal department have proven themselves able and proficient in the area of eligibility and to formulate legal documents and statutes.

[BonnieShels]

Er, there is no such thing as this. If you're going to post stuff at least make it factually correct.

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=267

He's getting there. Give it time.
At least he has stopped referring to the South.

[Not Brazil]

As the Irish situation is a unique situation, I trust in the acumen of the FIFA legal department and that they would be able to construct a document,
an agreement regarding the eligibility of international players born on the island of Ireland, without any fuss or the least bit of controversy, in 2007.

The FIFA legal department have proven themselves able and proficient in the area of eligibility and to formulate legal documents and statutes.

Blatantly constructed/manipulated inequality ie. discrimination would not be the way foward for FIFA and it's Lawyers.

No Lawyer, in my opinion, could defend a rule that favoured one nationality and disadvantaged all other nationalities that ordinarily would permit a player to represent more than one Association.

I believe that such a rule would be in breach of FIFA's own statutes on discrimination.

However, if you believe that players from this island are so especially unique as to disrupt the "global" eligibility rules of FIFA, don't let the real world awaken you.

[DannyInvincible]

Blatantly constructed/manipulated inequality ie. discrimination would not be the way foward for FIFA and it's Lawyers.

No Lawyer, in my opinion, could defend a rule that favoured one nationality and disadvantaged all other nationalities that ordinarily would permit a player to represent more than one Association.

I believe that such a rule would be in breach of FIFA's own statutes on discrimination.

However, if you believe that players from this island are so especially unique as to disrupt the "global" eligibility rules of FIFA, don't let the real world awaken you.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but the perspective from which look at the 2007 proposal mildly grates with me; your phraseology in this and previous posts would almost suggest that the benefit of Irish nationals was FIFA's guiding motive, as if Irish nationals were somehow culpable. The primary intent of FIFA's proposal, albeit misguided, was to benefit the IFA; not necessarily Irish nationals. Irish nationals just happened to be the bargaining token offered, if you will.

Anyway, it was FIFA's lawyers who suggested the proposal, so, incredible proposal rooted in illogic and inequality or not, there's no reason to believe they weren't prepared to both defend it and, if required, construct a legal framework to enable its operation.

[geysir]

Blatantly constructed/manipulated inequality ie. discrimination would not be the way foward for FIFA and it's Lawyers.

No Lawyer, in my opinion, could defend a rule that favoured one nationality and disadvantaged all other nationalities that ordinarily would permit a player to represent more than one Association.

I believe that such a rule would be in breach of FIFA's own statutes on discrimination.

However, if you believe that players from this island are so especially unique as to disrupt the "global" eligibility rules of FIFA, don't let the real world awaken you.


Contrary to your opinion of the FIFA legal department, they are lawyers, well versed in eligibility issues. If you have some example where they failed a legal challenge on an eligibility issue, then please offer it. I trust their belief over what would work within the Statutes than yours.

[Not Brazil]

Contrary to your opinion of the FIFA legal department, they are lawyers, well versed in eligibility issues. If you have some example where they failed a legal challenge on an eligibility issue, then please offer it. I trust their belief over what would work within the Statutes than yours.


The bogey man is discrimination - Article 3, as it is now.

You're the pundit suggesting that an Association's selection policy based squarely on developing players who wish to play for the Association at senior international level (and proactively facilitating those who don't) might fall foul of FIFA's Statutes on discrimination, but that a rule disadvantaging all players with a nationality that would ordinarily allow them to represent more than one Association, except those players with Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, would not.

I find that bizarre.

[Not Brazil]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but the perspective from which look at the 2007 proposal mildly grates with me; your phraseology in this and previous posts would almost suggest that the benefit of Irish nationals was FIFA's guiding motive, as if Irish nationals were somehow culpable. The primary intent of FIFA's proposal, albeit misguided, was to benefit the IFA; not necessarily Irish nationals. Irish nationals just happened to be the bargaining token offered, if you will.

Anyway, it was FIFA's lawyers who suggested the proposal, so, incredible proposal rooted in illogic and inequality or not, there's no reason to believe they weren't prepared to both defend it and, if required, construct a legal framework to enable its operation.

Don't let the paranoia set in DI - it's not your style.

I'm not suggesting that Republic Of Ireland Nationals are in any way at fault. I'm quite sure their rights extend just as far as any other Citizen of any other Nation...but no further.

I am suggesting that a by product of granting de facto "shared nationality" status in terms of Association representation to Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland would be Article 6 coming into play - and, if, FIFA made exception then for Republic Of Ireland Nationals regarding Article 6they would potentially leave themselves wide open to charges of inequality ie. discrimination.

Granting Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland eligibility to play for the Irish Football Association is a total car crash of an idea - for all concerned - as we agree.

[geysir]

The bogey man is discrimination - Article 3, as it is now.

You're the pundit suggesting that an Association's selection policy based squarely on developing players who wish to play for the Association at senior international level (and proactively facilitating those who don't) might fall foul of FIFA's Statutes on discrimination,

I didn't suggest that
I wrote in reply to Danny
"I have absolutely no idea on the matter if a policy of discriminating with available young talent based on loyalty aspiration, which is nationality based, could be proven to conflict with anything in article 3. Never thought about that."

However I did respectfully explain to Danny why I thought the French federation's proposal for racial quotas would conflict with article 3, if they had a chance to implement it. And as far as I recall, Danny concurred.


but that a rule disadvantaging all players with a nationality that would ordinarily allow them to represent more than one Association, except those players with Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, would not, I find that bizarre
Seeing as part one of your reply is bull, the 2nd part is redundant.

[Not Brazil]

"I have absolutely no idea on the matter if a policy of discriminating with available young talent based on loyalty aspiration, which is nationality based, could be proven to conflict with anything in article 3. Never thought about that."


What about a discriminatory rule, creating inequality...you'd "trust" FIFA's lawyers on that?

Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland are not "special" cases

They are just the same as everyone else, and deserve the same trteatment as everyone else.

Is that not what everyone told us when the issue was raising it's head - or, is there a feeling that the exception be when being treated the same as everybody else doesn't suit, and then it's "special", or "unique"?

[geysir]

What about

What about, what about? take a moment to pause and reflect on the nonsense you have just posted previously and acknowledge it.


What about a discriminatory rule, creating inequality...you'd "trust" FIFA's lawyers on that?

I trust FIFA's lawyers on matters of eligibility infinitely more time than I trust in the value of your perceptions on such a compromise document, I might add, a perceptive quality of yours, which (especially of late) has been shown to be quite erroneous and cynical.

[Not Brazil]

I trust FIFA's lawyers on matters of eligibility infinitely more time than I trust in the value of your perceptions on such a compromise document, I might add, a perceptive quality of yours, which (especially of late) has been shown to be quite erroneous and cynical.

Would you offer any indication of how you would envisage such a "compromise document" would read?

I'm struggling to see how a "compromise document" for the Irish issue, would not discriminate.

Perhaps, they may have just scrapped Annex 2 altogether.

[DannyInvincible]

Don't let the paranoia set in DI - it's not your style.

It was very subtly contrived, but I suppose I can let it slide for an incurable unionist. :)

On the whole issue of the proposal introducing inequality/discrimination into the mix, there are different types of "discrimination":


There's what you might call neutral or necessary discrimination. Discrimination between nationals for the purpose of determining eligibility for national teams might be a good example. Irish nationals aren't eligible to play for Brazil, for obvious reasons, nor can they then cry foul and claim they're being discriminated against on the basis of their nationality. Such would defeat the fundamental purpose of international football.

Then there's what you might call positive discrimination or affirmative action; favouring a group that you perceive to be suffering from a disadvantage in order to create practical rather than theoretical equilibrium, for example.

And there's malign discrimination. That'd be the nasty sort, such as an association refusing to select players on the basis of their ethnic or racial background. The FFF's potential racial quotas might have fallen into this bracket.


"Discrimination" is a wishy-washy, ambiguous term and obviously not all of the above would fall under the intent of article 3 of the statutes. Quite possibly, only the third type would fall under FIFA's definition of "discrimination". I can see how FIFA could easily have painted their 2007 proposal as necessary, for example, in order to reach an amicable solution, or even as positive in order to produce advantageous or favourable conditions for the IFA against what it then perceived to be an imbalance.

[Not Brazil]

I can see how FIFA could easily have painted their 2007 proposal as necessary, for example, in order to reach an amicable solution, or even as positive in order to produce advantageous or favourable conditions for the IFA against what it then perceived to be an imbalance.

We'll have to agree to differ on this - I have more pressing things to do, like get out in the sunshine on a putting green. The fact
that I have been putting like a GPO motorbike in recent weeks, bordering on "the yips" is, in truth, of exceedingly more concern to me than a discussion on what might have happened if a certain course of action had been taken in relation to footballers from this island in 2007.

I equate inequality with discrimination.

I cannot see any circumstances under which a "shared nationality" should be advantaged (or disadvantaged) over another "shared nationality" - even if you are from the island of Ireland:D

[Olé Olé]

The rules that presently govern eligibility are to be found in articles 5 to 8 of the 2011 Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/01/48/60/05/fifastatuten2011_e.pdf

(Is that file working properly for others? Hasn't been loading properly for me the past two days.)

If that doesn't work, here's the 2010 edition: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/01/29/85/71/fifastatuten2010_e.pdf

You'll find what are now articles 5 to 8 on page 66. They were then named articles 15 to 18.

What is now article 5 outlines the general principle of eligibility. Article 6 governs eligibility for associations who share a nationality, such as the FA, SFA, IFA and FAW who all share the British nationality, and invokes additional criteria requiring their players to satisfy a territorial connection. Article 7 deals with players who acquire a new nationality and article 8 deals with players switching association.

Circulars and annexes that have been mentioned above have more or less been addenda or amendments FIFA have made over the years that have since been incorporated into the overall rules.

There's a Wikipedia article featuring a general overview of some modern changes, such as the introduction of the right to switch association once before the age of 21 in 2004 and the later lifting in 2009 of that age-cap of 21 to allow players to switch once at any age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_eligibility_rules#Modern_changes

Although obviously tinged with other factors and complexities, I suspect that rule-change to be one of the most significant causes of the greater numbers of northern-born Irish nationals (from zero in the decades prior to the 1990s to two or three per year post-2004) declaring for the FAI in recent years and outlined my reasoning here: http://backpagefootball.com/general/so-what-did-prompt-northerners-declarations-for-fai/

Given Wiki's nature, just be careful to double-check anything you read there though. It states, for example:

"There are no restrictions on players that wish to switch national associations at youth level. Alex Zahavi has represented the Israel under-21s, the United States under-20s, the Portugal under-19s, the Portugal under-18s and the Portugal under-17s."

I don't think that's actually correct. There are, of course, restrictions, but they apply to competitive fixtures obviously. Likewise, we're not certain what exactly effects a player's solitary switch; whether it is any competitive fixture for his new association or merely a senior competitive fixture...

To be honest, however, if one wants to understand the eligibility statutes and their historical development since the 1950s, especially in relation to Ireland, the Court of Arbitration for Sport did a fantastic job of explaining the exact application and interpretation of each statute in the 2010 case of IFA v. FAI, Kearns and FIFA: http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4385/5048/0/Award202071.pdf

CAS was dealing with the regulations when they were articles 15 to 18 so will refer to them as such. The text of the articles is still identical, but I'd recommend a read of the judgment from page 11 onward. The whole thing could be read in an afternoon actually. Scroll through some of the headings and you'll find where they clarify the meaning behind each statute.

Gent and a scholar. Have yet to get under the legal skin of the issue, will endeavour to do so.

[DannyInvincible]

I equate inequality with discrimination.

I do too, but you can have what one might call positive, neutral or malign inequality in the very same way. Isn't affirmative action an example of unequal treatment in theory in order to create greater equality in practice?


I cannot see any circumstances under which a "shared nationality" should be advantaged (or disadvantaged) over another "shared nationality" - even if you are from the island of Ireland:D

Nor, evidently, did the IFA. FIFA proposed exactly that though, no matter how warped it might seem.

[ArdeeBhoy]

He's getting there. Give it time.
At least he has stopped referring to the South.

I think that's just a temporary blip? :rolleyes:

Erm.


I'm not suggesting that Republic Of Ireland Nationals are in any way at fault. I'm quite sure their rights extend just as far as any other Citizen of any other Nation...but no further.

I am suggesting that a by product of granting de facto "shared nationality" status in terms of Association representation to Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland would be Article 6 coming into play - and, if, FIFA made exception then for Republic Of Ireland Nationals regarding Article 6 they would potentially leave themselves wide open to charges of inequality ie. discrimination.

Granting Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland eligibility to play for the Irish Football Association is a total car crash of an idea - for all concerned - as we agree.

Except no such concept or citizenship exists. Is it really that hard to say the word , 'Irish' ??

If someone can't even get the basics right, especially when they have consistently derided others for such, why would they even have an iota of credibility...

[Not Brazil]

I do too, but you can have what one might call positive, neutral or malign inequality in the very same way. Isn't affirmative action an example of unequal treatment in theory in order to create greater equality in practice?


If a Citizen of the Irish Republic, from Louth for example, with no blood ties to Northern Ireland whatsoever, were allowed to play for the Irish Football Association on account of his Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, mindful that the Irish Football Association is British Association - but a player from Belfast, A British National, is denied the choice to play for The Football Association, a British Association - how would that be creating "greater equality in practice"?

[osarusan]

If someone can't even get the basics right, especially when they have consistently derided others for such, why would they even have an iota of credibility...
Indeed...




Originally Posted by Not Brazil View Post
Jesus wept.

I've already answered that - the South's players born in England, for example, are British Citizens.

They would be enjoying a senior international career with England if they were good enough


Actually none of them are British 'citizens', otherwise they couldn't play for Ireland, FFS!!

Btw, my sister from Doire's kids are all Irish citizens, despite them being born in England. And never have been.

So something else you need to read up on!

http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1558941&viewfull=1#post1558941

Comedy ensues as the penny slowly, slowly drops.

[ArdeeBhoy]

What comedy? And I'm not setting myself up as being totally self-righteous on the subject...

Nothing that I wrote more than 6 months ago is factually incorrect, except that those kids are also entitled to become British citizens which is ultimately up to them... perhaps you also have proof that any Irish players are exclusively British citizens?

Otherwise the 'joke' is on you...

[ArdeeBhoy]

If a Citizen of the Irish Republic, from Louth for example, with no blood ties to Northern Ireland whatsoever, were allowed to play for the Irish Football Association on account of his Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, mindful that the Irish Football Association is British Association - but a player from Belfast, A British National, is denied the choice to play for The Football Association, a British Association - how would that be creating "greater equality in practice"?

Doubtless another dig at me;you missed out as the great-granny was from An Dun, albeit from before independence...

[DannyInvincible]

If a Citizen of the Irish Republic, from Louth for example, with no blood ties to Northern Ireland whatsoever, were allowed to play for the Irish Football Association on account of his Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, mindful that the Irish Football Association is British Association - but a player from Belfast, A British National, is denied the choice to play for The Football Association, a British Association - how would that be creating "greater equality in practice"?

What amounts to "greater equality in practice" is a subjective matter; one of perspective. I'm not saying it would create greater equality in practice. I'm saying it appears that FIFA thought their 2007 proposal might have created such in suggesting the introduction of a theoretical inequality in order to balance what they perceived to be a "one-way situation" (or practical inequality, perhaps) at the time.

[Not Brazil]

Comedy ensues as the penny slowly, slowly drops.


Doubtless another dig at me

Do you think my treatment for paranoia is working osarusan?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Well, you do like to make personal digs...

Good that you learnt to MQ though.

[Not Brazil]

Comedy ensues as the penny slowly, slowly drops.

From someone from the north, to someone in the south, keep a wee eye out for some of the hypocrisy you might find from people in places like Louth (but not exclusively) about the naming of territory on this island.

I ask that favour in my capacity as a paranoid hypocrite.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Whatever you are, you're no comedian. Though an atlas would be a good idea in certain respects.

There are a number of questions that people have asked you though, going over the last few pages, which you've chosen not to answer. Probably because the answer would contradict other material you've posted and it doesn't suit your agenda, which is difficult to fathom at times...

[geysir]

At least someone has copped on that Ardee is in Louth, and that a poster called ArdeeBhoy most likely is from Ardee.
Who was it that that thought you were a Nordie AB?