FIFA and Non Sovereign States

[DannyInvincible]

Derry and Monaco are indeed correct.

No Canadian team has ever won the MLS, to the best of my knowledge. Vaduz play in the second tier of Swiss football. They did play in the Swiss Super League for a season but got relegated.

TNS are an interesting one. When I was initially asked the question - albeit from the other perspective, where I was given the names of three clubs and asked what they have in common - they weren't included. I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed the three clubs mentioned were the only three clubs who shared this achievement in common as I've seen the question also turned on its head and rephrased elsewhere online. I don't see why TNS shouldn't be included though. They play in Oswestry, Shropshire and have won the Welsh Premier League on numerous occasions in the past few seasons. When did they move to Oswestry? 2003? I assume they played in Oswestry for at least one of their winning seasons.

Maybe the question could be better fine-tuned. The third team isn't actually mentioned in the Wiki page above - they currently play in the league of what is indisputably their own country - and I was uncertain as to whether they definitely merited inclusion when it was first posed to me, given the political circumstances under which they won their championship. Identifying them may depend on your definition of what constitutes a separate country. My historical understanding has them playing in what might have commonly been identified as a different country but the same jurisdiction.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Somewhere in the Balkans then I would assume. Zagreb?

[nigel-harps1954]

Hardly be Cagliari of Sardinia or something similar to that?

[NeverFeltBetter]

Oh wait, it's Kiev or Tbilisi isn't it? Champions of the Soviet League numerous times while their actual countries were sort of nominally self-governing (sort of, not really).

[DannyInvincible]

The answer I'd had in mind isn't based in the Balkans, nor was the club ever under Soviet rule, but you're thinking along the right path.

Investigating further, I see Ararat Yerevan also won the old Soviet Top League, along with Kiev and Tblisi. With that in mind, however, I don't think there is any real distinction between the situation of the "correct answer" and the situations of clubs like Kiev, who would have fallen under Soviet jurisdiction when they won the Soviet league before going on to win the Ukranian league in their latter home country or entity of Ukraine after the break-up of the Soviet Union. As you also highlight, there are bound to be other similar examples in the Balkans due to the break-up of former Yugoslavia.

Anyway, the puzzle was originally posed to me as, "What do Derry City, AS Monaco and Rapid Vienna have in common?"

Rapid Vienna, of course, won the German championship in 1941 after the Anschluss between Germany and Austria after 1938. Having been annexed though, Austria was no longer officially recognised as an independent country at the time, as far as I understand, which is why I'm uncertain as to whether Rapid Vienna are a legitimate comparison to Derry and Monaco, who both won their titles whilst based in separate jurisdictions from those in which their leagues were administrated. Austria was simply a part of Germany in 1941, just as, say, Ukraine would have been a part of the Soviet Union when Kiev won their Soviet title.

Perhaps it is more correct to ask it in the above format, but then, the fact I was asking it in this thread subsequent to discussion about clubs based in one jurisdiction and playing in the league of another would have provided the obvious answer without requiring any further thought. I've also seen it phrased elsewhere online just as I posed it so assumed the original riddler had done his homework. Maybe I assumed wrong. Forgive me! :)

[TheBoss]

Here are 2 articles about champions from other countries.

Part I:
http://worldwidesoccerstories.blogspot.ie/search/label/champions%20in%20another%20country

Part II:
http://worldwidesoccerstories.blogspot.ie/2013/08/winning-league-in-another-country-part.html

[geysir]

The answer I'd had in mind isn't based in the Balkans, nor was the club ever under Soviet rule, but you're thinking along the right path.

Investigating further, I see Ararat Yerevan also won the old Soviet Top League, along with Kiev and Tblisi. With that in mind, however, I don't think there is any real distinction between the situation of the "correct answer" and the situations of clubs like Kiev, who would have fallen under Soviet jurisdiction when they won the Soviet league before going on to win the Ukranian league in their latter home country or entity of Ukraine after the break-up of the Soviet Union. As you also highlight, there are bound to be other similar examples in the Balkans due to the break-up of former Yugoslavia.

Anyway, the puzzle was originally posed to me as, "What do Derry City, AS Monaco and Rapid Vienna have in common?"

Rapid Vienna, of course, won the German championship in 1941 after the Anschluss between Germany and Austria after 1938. Having been annexed though, Austria was no longer officially recognised as an independent country at the time, as far as I understand, which is why I'm uncertain as to whether Rapid Vienna are a legitimate comparison to Derry and Monaco, who both won their titles whilst based in separate jurisdictions from those in which their leagues were administrated. Austria was simply a part of Germany in 1941, just as, say, Ukraine would have been a part of the Soviet Union when Kiev won their Soviet title.

Perhaps it is more correct to ask it in the above format, but then, the fact I was asking it in this thread subsequent to discussion about clubs based in one jurisdiction and playing in the league of another would have provided the obvious answer without requiring any further thought. I've also seen it phrased elsewhere online just as I posed it so assumed the original riddler had done his homework. Maybe I assumed wrong. Forgive me! :)
Danny in 'Derry are not part of Ireland' shocker.

[DannyInvincible]

I implied no such thing. :)

[Closed Account 2]

Saarbrucken (of Germany) won Ligue 2 in France after WWII and then were denied promotion into Ligue 1.

[geysir]

The more examples there are, the more one can appreciate that there are no hard and fast rules re a team being legally bound to compete in the league of their political jurisdiction, that there are exceptions which have existed in the past or/and continue to exist, eg. Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, Derry etc and if the Catalans did vote for independence, it doesn't mean their football teams would necessarily have to exit from the Spanish league.

On the hand, I doubt if Newry (when they were alive) wanted to join the LOI, would be given permission to.

The conditions no longer exist for Derry to have to be in the LOI, but there's no one pushing them back to the IL. If they wanted to go back to the IL, I'm sure it would be possible, just a matter of the details. But they have squatters rights to be in the LOI.
I kinda like the flowing logic of it all, that Uefa embrace. Probably it's not perfect, but it would be detrimental if hypothetically a club like Newry could make a court challenge to be treated like Derry were treated when they applied to join the LOI, and be allowed to leave the IL to join the LOI structure.

[nigel-harps1954]

The more examples there are, the more one can appreciate that there are no hard and fast rules re a team being legally bound to compete in the league of their political jurisdiction, that there are exceptions which have existed in the past or/and continue to exist, eg. Cardiff, Swansea, Wrexham, Derry etc and if the Catalans did vote for independence, it doesn't mean their football teams would necessarily have to exit from the Spanish league.

On the hand, I doubt if Newry (when they were alive) wanted to join the LOI, would be given permission to.

The conditions no longer exist for Derry to have to be in the LOI, but there's no one pushing them back to the IL. If they wanted to go back to the IL, I'm sure it would be possible, just a matter of the details. But they have squatters rights to be in the LOI.
I kinda like the flowing logic of it all, that Uefa embrace. Probably it's not perfect, but it would be detrimental if hypothetically a club like Newry could make a court challenge to be treated like Derry were treated when they applied to join the LOI, and be allowed to leave the IL to join the LOI structure.

Newry are back in the IL structure at the bottom levels.

[DannyInvincible]

On the hand, I doubt if Newry (when they were alive) wanted to join the LOI, would be given permission to.

Why do you say that? If the FAI were happy to take them and the IFA were happy to sanction it, on what grounds would UEFA/FIFA stand in the way?


I kinda like the flowing logic of it all, that Uefa embrace. Probably it's not perfect, but it would be detrimental if hypothetically a club like Newry could make a court challenge to be treated like Derry were treated when they applied to join the LOI, and be allowed to leave the IL to join the LOI structure.

The FAI couldn't be compelled by law to grant a particular club entry to the League of Ireland, could they?

[geysir]

Why do you say that? If the FAI were happy to take them and the IFA were happy to sanction it, on what grounds would UEFA/FIFA stand in the way?

In my (not that mad) hypothetical scenario I assumed because the same circumstances didn't exist for Newry as they did for Derry, that the IL would not approve of an application from Newry to exit the IL. And i'm not au fait with the happiness factor of the IL to let Derry go. I guess they did let derry go in the end but happy to let them go or just put into a corner over the decision?


The FAI couldn't be compelled by law to grant a particular club entry to the League of Ireland, could they?

In this (mad) hypothetical scenario of mine, the FAI would be willing to take Newry, but the IL would not be willing to let Newry go. Therefore Newry would have to force the situation by appealing to the European courts to force Uefa to approve of a move under the freedom to trade anywhere in the EU and citing a precedent to back up their argument, demanding consistency from Uefa. You haven't heard of the challenges to Uefa's ffp in the European courts? citing precedents and consistency as support arguments?

In the event of the IL willing to let Newry go and the LOI willing to receive, I'd imagine that Uefa would still need strong grounds to exist for the transfer, in order to get their approval. Derry had strong grounds for moving.

Just filling in time- it's the off season for teams who did not make it to the WC.

[DannyInvincible]

In the event of the IL willing to let Newry go and the LOI willing to receive, I'd imagine that Uefa would still need strong grounds to exist for the transfer, in order to get their approval. Derry had strong grounds for moving.

It would be interesting to know the criteria clubs must satisfy, if there are any strictly written down at all. Derry were accommodated due to a mix of political, cultural and financial factors - strong grounds, as you point out - but FIFA also seem happy to accommodate (or grant "special exemption" to) clubs whose mere financial interests would be disadvantaged by playing in the league of the political jurisdiction in which they're geographically based. What amount to strong grounds in the eyes of FIFA or UEFA, if such grounds are even a prerequisite for a transfer?

[Charlie Darwin]

The Basque Country are playing their annual post-Christmas friendly in Bilbao today with a team composed entirely of Primera División players.

http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/91912/basque-squad-named-for-peru-friendly/

[BonnieShels]

The Basque Country are playing their annual post-Christmas friendly in Bilbao today with a team composed entirely of Primera División players.

http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/91912/basque-squad-named-for-peru-friendly/

Basque won 6-0.

Aduriz (2), Agirretxe (2), Torres and Susaeta

[Charlie Darwin]

They did indeed. Catalunya play Cape Verde today. This is some squad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia_national_football_team#Current_squad

[BonnieShels]

Aye. Sure is.

Imagine Spain without them...

[Charlie Darwin]

Catalonia and Basque Country reignite call for independent national football identitiesWhile Spain enjoy a winter break, the footballers of Catalonia and the Basque Country will remind their country of the strength possessed of players from the regions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/spain/10541466/Catalonia-and-Basque-Country-reignite-call-for-independent-national-football-identities.html

[ArdeeBhoy]

Good on them.
More right than the glorified colonial theme parks being given 'status'...

[Stuttgart88]

A Kosovan club creatively taking advantage of their country's non-recognition by FIFA!

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jun/30/kosovan-club-luis-suarez-loan-ban

[NeverFeltBetter]

Only loosely related to thread topic, but interesting nonetheless: Crimean clubs expelled from Ukrainian Premier Division after Russian annexation. (http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/european/2014/0703/628398-ukraine-crimea/) Apparently they've rebranded and have applied for entry to the Russian system. I know there are plenty of examples of clubs in one nation playing in another, but in a disputed territory (and please don't say Derry...)?

[BonnieShels]

Bizarre.

Bizarre in the sense that Crimea was annexed, surely in order to continue the idea that it was still in Ukraine they would want to keep them in their league. Interesting nonetheless.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Think they're more worried about preserving the rest of the league, though going to be interesting when their League season starts up if the clubs in the east participate or others will go to play matches there. In the current state seems too dangerous. Though sport is hardly a priority.

And on an unrelated point, expect a Kurdistan team to pop up in the next year or so, though probably face the same issues as Kosovo & Palestine in terms of international recognition.
Currently play ball with a couple of Kosovans who say they want their own team and not to be part of a greater Albanian one?

[NeverFeltBetter]

Bizarre.

Bizarre in the sense that Crimea was annexed, surely in order to continue the idea that it was still in Ukraine they would want to keep them in their league. Interesting nonetheless.

I'm only going on some articles I read through Google translate (so, sort of botched English) but I get the feeling the people behind at least a couple of those clubs are rather pro-Russian - the expulsion might simply have been a pre-emptive thing. "I dumped you" essentially.

As for Kurdistan, I'd say they have a better chance of being recognised as their own state than Kosovo, though it would still be a ways off. They've essentially been governing themselves for decades anyway and no member of the UNSC has a major axe to grind with them the same way they do with Kosovo. Turkey's position on them is important - what with that bizarrely under-reported war that's lasted a very long time between the two - but if that was resolved, I'd say statehood wouldn't be too far away.

[TheBoss]

From what I read, the Crimean clubs quit the Ukrainian League when the season finished, disbanded and formed new clubs to enter the Russian League.

[ArdeeBhoy]

As for Kurdistan, I'd say they have a better chance of being recognised as their own state than Kosovo, though it would still be a ways off. They've essentially been governing themselves for decades anyway and no member of the UNSC has a major axe to grind with them the same way they do with Kosovo. Turkey's position on them is important - what with that bizarrely under-reported war that's lasted a very long time between the two - but if that was resolved, I'd say statehood wouldn't be too far away.

Would agree, but besides the Turkish angle (which is far far from likely IMO), and the ongoing turmoil in Iraq, the only other matter of Kurdish contention is in Syria...
:rolleyes:

[NeverFeltBetter]

Gibraltar application to FIFA was rejected. It was expected and, as with UEFA, they're now going to CAS: http://www.insidethegames.biz/sports/summer/football/1022879-gibraltar-to-appeal-fifa-s-rejection-of-membership-bid-because-it-is-not-a-country

Don't know how that will go - FIFA rules a bit different than UEFA's - but it means that they won't be involved in 2018 qualifying for one thing.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Good...

FIFA finally get something right. Though told by FAI contact, all about Bl*tter & Pl*tini playing politics with each other.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Well duh. Blatter doesn't actually give a toss about Gibraltar being in or out of FIFA. CAS might (might) make him care, but for now its just more of the FIFA/UEFA bickering.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Er, that's what I just said...

[Charlie Darwin]

Well duh. Blatter doesn't actually give a toss about Gibraltar being in or out of FIFA. CAS might (might) make him care, but for now its just more of the FIFA/UEFA bickering.
I wonder whether UEFA are actually pushing it either, since they didn't want Gibraltar in, or are they just making a point.

[ArdeeBhoy]

See posts #229 & 231...

[NeverFeltBetter]

I wonder whether UEFA are actually pushing it either, since they didn't want Gibraltar in, or are they just making a point.

Now that Gibraltar are actually in UEFA, it would behoove them to support membership of FIFA proper though, right? It's one more vote to canvass for now, and Platini has to have an eye on the top job at some point.

[Charlie Darwin]

Now that Gibraltar are actually in UEFA, it would behoove them to support membership of FIFA proper though, right? It's one more vote to canvass for now, and Platini has to have an eye on the top job at some point.
Gibraltar are in UEFA despite the kicking and screaming of UEFA.

[DannyInvincible]

This piece makes an interesting point in terms of the implications that potential Gibraltarian FIFA membership might have as far as the voting power of the UEFA bloc is concerned: http://www.insideworldfootball.com/david-owen/15536-david-owen-the-broader-significance-of-gibraltar-s-application-for-fifa-membership


As it happens, however, the question of the admission or non-admission of Gibraltar to world football's governing body is not without a certain broader significance, at least as far as the rather recondite world of football politics is concerned.

To grasp why, we need to turn to Article 26 of the FIFA statutes, where it is stated that a proposal to amend said statutes "shall be adopted if approved by three-quarters of the members present and eligible to vote".

Turned on its head, this means that a proposal falls if opposed by a quarter of members present and eligible to vote, plus one.

There are currently 209 football associations affiliated to FIFA, making the minimum number of votes necessary to block a proposed statute amendment, if everyone shows up, 53.

This just happens to be the exact number of FIFA member-associations in the European zone that constitutes UEFA's sphere of activity.

If, in other words, UEFA President Michel Platini has the support of every European FA (admittedly far from a given), and if all are present and correct, then the Frenchman is one of two confederation heads who could conceivably mobilise the voting power to block changes to FIFA's statutes. The other is Issa Hayatou, President of the African Football Confederation (CAF), which, since the admission of South Sudan, has become just the largest confederation, with 54 members.

The arrival of Gibraltar, besides putting Europe back on a par with Africa, a largely symbolic matter, would give the Europeans that extra little bit of flexibility, ensuring that they retained a theoretical veto even if one European member were absent or temporarily ineligible.

I should make clear that I am not suggesting for a moment that such arithmetical calculations have any bearing whatsoever on anybody's stance on the merits of Gibraltar's application for FIFA membership. But this would be a consequence of Gibraltar – or for that matter Kosovo – being welcomed into the FIFA fold.


Blatter doesn't actually give a toss about Gibraltar being in or out of FIFA. CAS might (might) make him care...

Hehe, maybe. Recognition of CAS's role in resolving disputes is expressly acknowledged in both UEFA and FIFA statues, although I suppose neither UEFA nor FIFA are necessarily bound to action by CAS judgments if they simply don't wish to act on the court's findings. It would reflect very poorly on either if they were to flat-out reject a CAS order to act, mind.

Nevertheless, when CAS first declared in 2003 that UEFA's objection (assumed to be due in large part to the Spanish association's political clout and threats) to recognition for Gibraltar was incompatible with the membership regulations of the confederation that would have been in effect when Gibraltar first formally applied for UEFA membership in 1999 (via a 1997 request lodged with FIFA) and ordered UEFA to consider the application on the basis of the 1999 regulations, UEFA were still content to dilly-dally on the issue for quite a few years. At the time of Gibraltar's original application, article 5 of UEFA's statutes (http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/410.pdf) outlined that membership was "open to national football associations situated in the continent of Europe which [were] responsible for the organisation and implementation of football-related matters in their particular territory". This article was amended in 2001, with purported retrospective effect, so that UEFA membership would be confined to associations in countries recognised as independent states by the international community.

Gibraltar appealed to CAS again in 2006. On both that occasion and in 2003, CAS affirmed that Gibraltar's potential accession to UEFA should be considered or granted based on the application of the old statutes - CAS stated that "[u]nder Swiss law [by which the court was bound], the prohibition against the retroactive application of law [was] well-established" - yet UEFA denied Gibraltar membership until granting provisional recognition in 2012 pending a 2013 vote amongst all UEFA associations on the matter of full membership. Interestingly, only Spain (for obvious reasons) and Belarus objected to Gibraltar's accession to UEFA in that 2013 vote. Why did it bother Belarus, I wonder?...

I'm not sure we can take it for granted that FIFA membership will or should automatically follow accession to UEFA though, even if Gibraltar does appear to satisfy the criterion in FIFA's statutes demanding that any applicant must first have been a provisional member of a continental confederation for a period of at least two years, nor do I think we can simply assume that CAS will find that FIFA ought to grant the GFA membership either. It is not unprecedented that an association might compete in competition run by its continental confederation whilst being simultaneously barred from FIFA competition; it is worth noting that French Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe and Saint Martin all have national teams that have long been allowed to compete within CONCACAF despite having never been granted membership to FIFA. Indeed, there is little chance that FIFA will ever recognise them.

Whilst UEFA may have been found by CAS to have acted in bad faith by amending their admission criteria after the GFA's original application, I'm not certain the same can necessarily be said of FIFA. Article 10 of FIFA's statutes (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/AFFederation/Generic/02/41/81/55/FIFAStatuten2014_E_Neutral.pdf) on admission (which has been in place and of more-or-less identical wording since long before Gibraltar were granted admission to UEFA in 2013) states that FIFA membership can only be granted to associations governing football in an independent state recognised by the international community. Gibraltar is not an independent state recognised by the international community. The eventually-successful appeal for UEFA membership may well have been legitimately based on a former UEFA statute that would have applied when the GFA first sought accession to UEFA, but there is no equivalent former FIFA statute that might once have existed at a time when Gibraltar first formally applied for FIFA membership (only this year) or that would otherwise have guaranteed accession to FIFA or compelled them into official deliberation because membership of FIFA has, for as long as Gibraltar has been a member of UEFA, been expressly limited to associations that have already been provisional members of a continental confederation for at least two years. Even though the original UEFA membership application was lodged via FIFA, when Gibraltar first applied for UEFA membership in 1999, they weren't or couldn't be simultaneously formally applying for FIFA membership, which, of course, would have been dependent on two years of provisional membership of UEFA. Maybe CAS will argue that Gibraltar's present request for FIFA membership should be considered as if the GFA had been successful in attaining UEFA membership in 1999 - UEFA membership should have been granted then in accordance with the rules then in application, after all - but I'm not so sure we can assume this will be the case.

The present FIFA statues do also state that "an association in a region which has not yet gained independence may, with the authorisation of the Association in the country on which it is dependent, also apply for admission to FIFA", but I'm not sure that this would apply here either. Gibraltar isn't seeking independence nor is it in the process of gaining it. Even if it was argued that it could apply to Gibraltar's case, which association would have to authorise it; the FA, FAW, IFA or SFA? Or perhaps all of them in unison?

As for UEFA, if they really believed in the old saying, "Keep politics out of football!", they'd have compelled Spain to accept having been originally drawn in the same group as Gibraltar for the current Euro qualifiers.

[ArdeeBhoy]

You mean like Armenia & Azerbaijan would be?

Oh and Belarus was because 'they would bring no away fans'...

[geysir]

Jersey have had their bid to join Uefa rejected (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37543139).
In case Tricky reads this, all the possible 'can't play for the Jersey' jokes have already been used previously.
The most recent precedent of a non UN recognised independent state (Kosovo) being accepted by Uefa has opened a small hole in a can of worms.
Jersey fa will appeal the rejection based on 'if Kosovo can, why can't we?'

I didn't realise Jersey was so well populated, some 100,000 islanders.

[NeverFeltBetter]

I recall Jersey had a chapter in "Outcasts!" about Jersey and the Channel Islands generally. Certainly, they seem to have an identity distinct from that of the United Kingdom, and a footballing culture/tradition that must at least match that of Gibraltar. I guess the key thing is UEFA's opinion of the difference between a "Crown Dependency" and an "Overseas Territory". Though, as far as I can tell, Jersey is more independent than Gibraltar, as they can make laws contrary to those of the UK (though it is "property of the crown").

[pineapple stu]

I think part of Gibraltar's success was because they applied to be members of FIFA before FIFA tightened up rules disallowing that sort of thing.

So Jersey would be disallowed purely because it's now to late to apply the same way that Gibraltar did.

[geysir]

This Uefa commttee have stopped Jersey's plea

"Uefa's executive will not allow their congress to discuss Jersey's bid as the island is not recognised by the United Nations as an independent nation."
Jersey say the Uefa exec have overplayed their hand.
The definition of what constitutes a country is wide and varied and probably because of that, Uefa have inserted just one criteria, namely UN recognition.
It's too late for Jersey to use Gib as a precedent, because Gib first applied to become a member before Uefa inserted the one criteria "recognised by the United Nations as an independent state".
However Kosovo was accepted by Uefa recently as a member, even although Kosovo is not recognised by the UN.

Uefa statute 5
Membership of UEFA is open to national football associations. Members situated in the continent of Europe, based in a country which isrecognised by the United Nations as an independent state, andwhich are responsible for the organisation and implementation offootball-related matters in the territory of their country.

[pineapple stu]

Uefa have inserted just one criteria, namely UN recognition.
I think very technically, they've inserted a second criterion (you can't have "one criteria" any more than you can have "one countries") - that you have to be England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

But it's a tricky question, and in the end of the day, you can't have every island trying to get in and get a rake of money. There has to be a line somewhere. I've no real idea where that line is though.

[NeverFeltBetter]

What is the cash amount likely to be for someone like Jersey/Gibraltar/Kosovo, aside from the gates? I don't actually know what kind of money national FA's get from TV rights or the like, though the sponsorship opportunities seem obvious. What development funds have Gib gotten so far?

[pineapple stu]

Well you get club teams into European competition for a start - so that's E200k/team less expenses of course.

TV money for the qualifiers is big and growing I think; that's why qualifiers are now spread over three nights instead of on one night.

There's additional funds like UEFA Solidarity, UEFA funds to cover licencing, etc.

I'd say it'd be well worth Jersey's while, financially, getting into FIFA.

[geysir]

I think very technically, they've inserted a second criterion (you can't have "one criteria" any more than you can have "one countries") - that you have to be England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

But it's a tricky question, and in the end of the day, you can't have every island trying to get in and get a rake of money. There has to be a line somewhere. I've no real idea where that line is though.
I don't see a second criterion for defining a country, the other criteria mentioned in that statute are for the FA.


It would appear at least in the case of Kosovo, that individual Uefa voting members can make up their own minds as to what constitutes a valid Uefa membership appeal and what is an invalid appeal.
In the case of Kosovo, the only criterion existing in the matter (UN recognition) was put aside as not being flexible enough to define a country's status as a bone fide independent state. But in the case of Jersey, the absence of UN recognition was used as a reason to deny them a vote on the matter at the AGM, by the wider membership.

Re this singular UN recognition criterion, at least Kosovo has recognition in part from 109 UN members whereas Jersey is a total non-country in the eyes of the UN.

[pineapple stu]

I don't see a second criterion for defining a country, the other criteria mentioned in that statute are for the FA.
Actually, I'm looking at FIFA statutues, not UEFA statutes. Technically, FIFA membership is open to the FAs of countries (and it then defines "country"), or to the FAs of England/NI/Scotland/Wales. The conclusion is that England/NI/Scotland/Wales is a second definition of "countries" in the statutes. UEFA just say that the "country" criterion doesn't apply to England, etc.

Curiously, FIFA statutes don't mention UN recognition; a country is just one recognised as such by the international community. Not sure why the difference there.

It doesn't really have any relevance on the point you were making; I just like that there's a explicit rule in the statutes to allow England/NI/Scotland/Wales special exemption to play international football.

[geysir]

Actually, I'm looking at FIFA statutues, not UEFA statutes. Technically, FIFA membership is open to the FAs of countries (and it then defines "country"), or to the FAs of England/NI/Scotland/Wales. The conclusion is that England/NI/Scotland/Wales is a second definition of "countries" in the statutes. UEFA just say that the "country" criterion doesn't apply to England, etc.

Curiously, FIFA statutes don't mention UN recognition; a country is just one recognised as such by the international community. Not sure why the difference there
It doesn't really have any relevance on the point you were making; I just like that there's a explicit rule in the statutes to allow England/NI/Scotland/Wales special exemption to play international football..


The FIFA statutes on membership have gone through various transitions.The 2016 issue has no definition of a country, just that a FIFA member should already be a member of their confederation.
The Nr 5. "Each of the four British associations shall be recognised as a separate member association of FIFA" is more likely to have been inserted at the vehement behest of our more paranoid UK associations. It's not needed, except in the paranoid reality (prob of the IFA) to protect themselves, that any possible FIFA move to shift the 4 UK associations into one association, would need to go to a congress vote.


Afaia, Uefa refused entry to Gib, then belatedly inserted the UN recognition criterion into the statutes. CAS upheld Gib's appeal, namely that the criterion did not exist when Gib applied, therefore their membership application should have gone to a vote and the vote to consider that application should take place as if the criterion did not exist.
A time space reversal thing.

If we assume that time space legitimacy for Gib and accept that the rest of those members (UK/Faroes) on the exemption list were already established members of Uefa before the UN recognition was inserted, then those members do not actually need to be listed as exempt, as they were already members before that recognition clause was inserted into the statutes.

But now we have Kosovo as a member and there is no clause in the statutes which states that Uefa can make an exception to the UN recognition criterion.
Just as there is a clause existing which states they can make an exception to allow in a member (Israel) from outside Europe.

Probably Uefa will have to put in an exception clause to the UN recognition thing and hope they get away with the Kosovo vote. Platini could have fixed that one with some msap (money solves all problems).

[pineapple stu]

The 2016 issue has no definition of a country, just that a FIFA member should already be a member of their confederation.
Is this (http://resources.fifa.com/mm/Document/AFFederation/Generic/02/78/29/07/FIFAStatutswebEN_Neutral.pdf?t=1461659845938) not the current statues? April 2016.

Defines "country" as "an independent state recognised by the international community" at the start.

Members must already be in their own contintental confederation, but they also must be representing a country.

Anyways, semantics.

[geysir]

Is this (http://resources.fifa.com/mm/Document/AFFederation/Generic/02/78/29/07/FIFAStatutswebEN_Neutral.pdf?t=1461659845938) not the current statues? April 2016.

Defines "country" as "an independent state recognised by the international community" at the start.

Members must already be in their own contintental confederation, but they also must be representing a country.

Anyways, semantics.
Yes I see that definition now, I hadn't before.

However in the membership section of the statutes, a member association does not have to represent a country.
"An association in a region which has not yet gained independence may, with
the authorisation of the member association in the country on which it is
dependent, also apply for admission to FIFA"

Also, we can say Kosovo is a country, recognised to some extent in the international community but not recognised to the full extent in the international community that it can be called a bone fide country just yet. Therefore imo, Fifa doesn't outline the definition of a member association /country like Uefa does with it's compulsory UN recognition tag.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Jersey's bid to join UEFA rejected after CAS insisted their case be heard: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43183023