FIFA disciplinary proceedings over 1916 Easter Rising logo.

[geysir]

I'd regard it as the height of pigheadedness for the IFA (by IFA standards of pigheadedness) to be requesting permission for the players to wear the poppy on the shirt.

[BonnieShels]

And then when Niall McGinn refuses to wear it we will have Wullie going mental. Gas.

[BonnieShels]

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/80903009c3d944b363e8e3cd1914f5586459c242/0_0_2057_3479/master/2057.jpg

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/80903009c3d944b363e8e3cd1914f5586459c242/0_0_2057_3479/master/2057.jpg?w=940&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&

Guardian's take on the "controversy".

[Lionel Ritchie]

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/80903009c3d944b363e8e3cd1914f5586459c242/0_0_2057_3479/master/2057.jpg

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/80903009c3d944b363e8e3cd1914f5586459c242/0_0_2057_3479/master/2057.jpg?w=940&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&

Guardian's take on the "controversy".

Not opening for me. Meanwhile the Irish News (http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2016/11/09/news/northern-ireland-football-team-to-wear-black-armbands---but-no-poppies-776196/) is reporting our northern cousins will wear black armbands but not poppies following a clear-as-mud clarification from FIFA who "could not guarantee there would be no discipliniary proceedings" if the poppy was displayed.

I'm going to speculate this is what happens next

Northern Ireland -asked for permission (permission denied) -did not wear politican symbol - no further action taken.
England -asked for permission (permission denied) - defied clarification and wore political symbol - substantial fine.
Scotland -asked for permission (permission denied) - defied clarification and wore political symbol - substantial fine.
Ireland -did not ask for permission -wore political symbol - nailed to a wall.

[Gather round]

I'm pleased the IFA won't be wearing the poppy, disappointed that they even asked.

As soon as the symbol moves from collecting tin to players' shirts, it becomes effectively compulsory (and undignified, even before you consider all the halfwits sculpting it into their facial hair/ furry animal mascots etc.)

As a wise dissenter said on social media, anyone arguing it isn't a political symbol in NI needs their head felt.

You can probably now say the same thing of E, S, and W.

Delaney can pay the fine from his singing royalties.

PS belated thanks to Fixer for that BBC WS link above

[BonnieShels]

Not opening for me. Meanwhile the Irish News (http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2016/11/09/news/northern-ireland-football-team-to-wear-black-armbands---but-no-poppies-776196/) is reporting our northern cousins will wear black armbands but not poppies following a clear-as-mud clarification from FIFA who "could not guarantee there would be no discipliniary proceedings" if the poppy was displayed.

I'm going to speculate this is what happens next

Northern Ireland -asked for permission (permission denied) -did not wear politican symbol - no further action taken.
England -asked for permission (permission denied) - defied clarification and wore political symbol - substantial fine.
Scotland -asked for permission (permission denied) - defied clarification and wore political symbol - substantial fine.
Ireland -did not ask for permission -wore political symbol - nailed to a wall.

Here itis again:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/picture/2016/nov/08/david-squires-football-poppy-fury-season

[osarusan]

England and Scotland both wearing poppy armbands. Wales chose not to in the end.

[BonnieShels]

Lovely amount of jingoistic crap at the start

[geysir]

Fifa will now surely give the obstinate brits a pass on their poppy affection while burying us with a €50k fine :rolleyes:

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

http://www.the42.ie/northern-ireland-poppy-display-azerbaijan-3078374-Nov2016/

[Charlie Darwin]

Haha, as if that wasn't co-ordinated by the IFA. They'll still demand we get punished. Shameless.

[CraftyToePoke]

Haha, as if that wasn't co-ordinated by the IFA. They'll still demand we get punished. Shameless.

Ah, I don't know CD, it looks pretty off the cuff. Spontaneous.

[geysir]

It's not a poppy, it's a 4 leaved red clover.

http://images.clipshrine.com/wheel/thumb-four-leaf-clover-33.3-18204.png

[osarusan]

FIFA has opened disciplinary proceedings against England and Scotland also.

[Charlie Darwin]

Hope UEFA really stick it to them for being grasses.

[HarpoJoyce]

Hope UEFA really stick it to them for being grasses.

Is that more poppy/lilies/four-leaf-clover references?

[osarusan]

Wales and NI being investigated also for their displays.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/38077727

[geysir]

A hefty fine for 3 FAs for their overt political display and childish disobedience, but a points deduction for the snitching.

FAI to get a polite reprimand.

[DeLorean]

FAI fined €4,670 without the right to appeal.

England and Scotland have been ordered to pay almost €45,000 and €20,000 respectively over their decision to have players wear armbands with poppy symbols when the two sides met each other at Wembley. They have the right to appeal as the fine exceeds 15,000 CHF.

The Football Association of Wales were fined £15,692 and the Irish Football Association £11,769 for related offences.

FAI hit with a fine for commemorative 1916 shirts (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/international/fai-hit-with-a-fine-for-commemorative-1916-shirts-1.2911502)

[Lionel Ritchie]

I'm just happy to be wrong on the extent to which the book got thrown at us. We got off very lightly relatively. We're lucky our fine doesn't dwarf the four UK associations fines combined. They appear to have been fined for being defiant where as we appear to have been fined for being a bit thick.

[DeLorean]

We're lucky our fine doesn't dwarf the four UK associations fines combined.

Why so?

[jbyrne]

I'm just happy to be wrong on the extent to which the book got thrown at us. We got off very lightly relatively. We're lucky our fine doesn't dwarf the four UK associations fines combined. They appear to have been fined for being defiant where as we appear to have been fined for being a bit thick.

what nonsense. there are stadiums in the world named after revolutions, dates of independence etc. Should countrys be fined every time they play there?
what about Barcelona and Bilbao who constantly use Catalan and Basque flags and emblems without fine? sure Barcelona have / had an away kit in the catalan colours.

[NeverFeltBetter]

There's a level of deniability there though. If it went to court Barcelona could just say they liked the color. If Barca were playing with St George's Crosses or something more overt in regards Catalan independence a case could be made.

[DeLorean]

Did the FAI get permission or not? Basically I think that's all that matters. It seems clear enough now that they must not have but I was pretty sure they did at the time for some reason.

[jbyrne]

Did the FAI get permission or not? Basically I think that's all that matters. It seems clear enough now that they must not have but I was pretty sure they did at the time for some reason.

did they get permission for Amhrán na bhFiann at the same time? cant get much more political than a national anthem.... particularly ours

[NeverFeltBetter]

I think it's fair to say that FIFA/UEFA have a basic level of political symbols they will tolerate, in the form of flags and anthems. What the "home nations" and Ireland did went beyond that.

There's no way the FAI got permission for it, unless it was some kind of verbal agreement.

[osarusan]

FAI and Umbro needed (and presumably got) permission from the government to use the logo (to be more exact - they needed permission to alter the existing crest, which is government owned, to include the 1916 logo). Perhaps that is the permission people remember being granted.

[Charlie Darwin]

There's a level of deniability there though. If it went to court Barcelona could just say they liked the color. If Barca were playing with St George's Crosses or something more overt in regards Catalan independence a case could be made.
Like the St George's cross on their crest?

[Lionel Ritchie]

what nonsense. there are stadiums in the world named after revolutions, dates of independence etc. Should countrys be fined every time they play there?
what about Barcelona and Bilbao who constantly use Catalan and Basque flags and emblems without fine? sure Barcelona have / had an away kit in the catalan colours.

Fair comment to an extent. I'm unaware of any rules regarding the naming of stadia though. The rules that are there relate to political displays. We were in breach of those -letter and spirit.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Why so?

The UK associations asked. They were given warnings not to -with the exception of Wales I believe who were given a much more diluted wishy washy "cannot guarentee you won't be in breach" response. They were fined for ignoring a rule they were fully aware of.

We, on the other hand, manifesting the national motto "ah sure it'll be grand" never even bothered asking. We just fired away and did it. I reckoned they'd bend us over a bench. I'm pleasantly surprised to be wrong.

[DeLorean]

True but I would still consider us to be a bit less guilty for that very reason really.

I saw a suggestion on Facebook that the FAI/Umbro should sell a limited amount of the jerseys with the 1916 crest to cover the fine. :)

[Fizzer]

I assume the smiley means you're joking Delorean.otherwise we'd be as ignorant and as arrogant as the Brits who decided to plough on regardless. It's a broadly sensible rule albeit difficult to enforce.A small pie in the face of the poppy toting lunatics that have taken over across the water but it should have been a bigger fine.The discouraging of politics from the game in my view makes it a safer sport for the fans to attend even if only very marginally so.im happy to go along with the principle being attempted by FIFA.

[Closed Account]

From my memory, and I can't find any evidence of it, the FAI/Umbro teased a picture of the logo they were going to use on twitter a week at least before the game. An eagle eye/legal eye asked if the were allowed to display the logo on match jerseys.

An official reply said they wouldn't wear them because of UEFA reasons but an Umbro account said they would be wearing them. In my mind, that's fair warning. It's a small fine by FAI standard buy negligence as far as I can see.

[DeLorean]

I assume the smiley means you're joking Delorean.

The smiley was just used to indicate that I didn't take the suggestion too seriously. I agree with your sentiments overall regarding the effort to keep politics out of football. That said, I don't think this was a particularly big deal, which is supported by the fact that nobody (outside of a few north of the border) really batted an eyelid until the it was used as a precedent. It was probably slightly naive or slightly stupid by the FAI not to seek approval from the proper source but no major harm done - small crime, small fine. I do think the UK associations deserved their bigger penalties as it was a more blatant disregard for the instructions they'd been given.

[geysir]

I'm just happy to be wrong on the extent to which the book got thrown at us. We got off very lightly relatively. We're lucky our fine doesn't dwarf the four UK associations fines combined. They appear to have been fined for being defiant where as we appear to have been fined for being a bit thick.
That's nonsense, we were not lucky at all, we were not thick and it wasn't a Fai fiasco.
You're the one who got it wrong re your previous comments about the Fai and Uefa and now you claim it was the Fai being thick and we got lucky.
The Fai's faux pas re political symbols was the minimum that could be made re political symbols that could fall foul of the Uefa regulations, therefore the low fine was appropriate. The FAI took the charge on the chin and accepted responsibility, in contrast to the idiots at the other FA's who couldn't shut up about their right to display their blatantly obvious political symbols and who all went ahead with some sort of display despite obvious questions being asked.

[Lionel Ritchie]

That's nonsense, we were not lucky at all, we were not thick and it wasn't a Fai fiasco.
You're the one who got it wrong re your previous comments about the Fai and Uefa and now you claim it was the Fai being thick and we got lucky.
The Fai's faux pas re political symbols was the minimum that could be made re political symbols that could fall foul of the Uefa regulations, therefore the low fine was appropriate. The FAI took the charge on the chin and accepted responsibility, in contrast to the idiots at the other FA's who couldn't shut up about their right to display their blatantly obvious political symbols and who all went ahead with some sort of display despite obvious questions being asked.

Nothing nonsensical about it Geysir. The FAI had no choice but to take it on the chin. The 1916 yoke is as blatantly obviously a political statement and symbol as any other in this story. They were 100%, unequivocably in the wrong to stick the thing on the jersey. They'd no cards to play in this, no precedent to quote. I acknowledged I'd been wrong about the extent to which the FAI would be punished -at least twice I acknowleged it in fact. But don't be trying to make this out that the FAI were savvy that UEFA couldn't have given a flying one. The FAI, and by the FAI I particularly mean Delaney and his lackeys, showed themselves to be naive to the point of clueless -more interested in bandwagoneering and being seen to be doing something than actually checking what they were or were not allowed do.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't know why you'd ever think someone who made a stupid mistake and didn't ask for permission would be punished more harshly than somebody who was refused permission and said '**** you, we'll do it anyway.'

[Lionel Ritchie]

...exactly because we did it first and set the precedent for others to quote Charlie. That's all.

[Charlie Darwin]

We didn't set any precedent. The only precedent was England getting a special exemption a few years ago. This time they willingly took the **** whereas Ireland's was rightly treated as careless.

[DannyInvincible]

FIFA and the IFAB are set to ratify a rule-change on the wearing of political symbols on jerseys: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41378397


Last week Fifa is understood to have sent out a draft proposal to its member nations with revised provisions that could see the poppy permitted if opposing teams and the competition organiser for the relevant match both accept its use in advance.

The new law is expected to be passed in time for November's international games, which are to be played between 6 and 14 November - a period that incorporates Remembrance weekend.

...

The new wording of Fifa's law tightens the definition of what is deemed a 'political' symbol prohibiting:


the commemoration of any living or dead person
political parties or groups
any local or national government
discriminatory organisations
any group whose aims / actions would offend a notable number of people
any specific political act / event
The International Football Association Board (IFAB), the guardian organisation of the sport's laws, is expected to approve the amendment in early October.

...

It is believed the fines levied against the UK associations last year will not now need to be paid.

I'm not sure if the poppy fiasco and specific pressure from the UK associations provided the direct impetus for this rule-change or whether it was a general change that FIFA were considering introducing anyway, although the British media are certainly portraying the former to be the case.

In fact, the insufferable Telegraph are (as you'd expect) portraying (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/09/24/ending-ban-fifa-have-finally-de-politicised-poppy/) this as FIFA "finally seeing sense" (because they've come round to the British way of thinking, or the right way of thinking, in other words), "backing down" (in the face of superior British moral clout) and "de-politicising the poppy", which isn't really true at all, is it? The poppy will surely still be classified as a political symbol under the new rule (because it is a symbol that commemorates dead persons - which is one of FIFA's defining criteria - and is quite obviously of a political nature anyway); it's just that such symbols can now be permitted so long as the governing body and the two associations involved in a particular game where one wishes to wear a political symbol all agree to its wearing in advance.

Although that does raise the question; why outline "prohibiting" criteria at all if those criteria can simply be over-ruled by way of common agreement between opposing teams and the governing body? Assuming the two opposing associations are happy for a particular political symbol to be worn, what secondary criteria need to be satisfied for the exemption to be granted by the governing body if the primary criteria outlined above won't necessarily apply? On what grounds exactly can the governing body permit a team to wear something that explicitly falls foul of the rule? Will there be any further rule or advice to offer guidance in making such determinations or will it just be a case of the governing body playing it by ear on a case by case basis?

Surely such a prerogative introduces a significant and rather unsatisfactory degree of arbitrariness. For example, without any further guiding criteria, on what rationale could FIFA justify the granting of permission for one team to wear a symbol commemorating dead persons whilst simultaneously refusing to grant permission to another team to wear the symbol of, say, a discriminatory organisation? Or, more specifically, if FIFA are going to grant the British associations an exemption to commemorate British soldiers (who have been the perpetrators of some particularly nasty things down through history, including war crimes), wouldn't FIFA be applying the rule in a capricious, inconsistent and incoherent manner if they were then (hypothetically-speaking) to refuse to grant permission to another team who sought, for whatever reason, to wear symbols commemorating, say, Adolf Hitler or Nazi soldiers? On what credible basis could they justify permitting one whilst disallowing the other?

It's odd too that fines will be retrospectively expunged considering the rule was still broken (very much intentionally) last November. That definitely seems like a cop-out on the part of FIFA alright. Will the FAI's fine for the 1916 logo (https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2016/1219/839938-fai/) (which was a rule-breach on account of carelessness rather than intent) be expunged also?

[backstothewall]

any group whose aims / actions would offend a notable number of people

Well that's a can of worms if ever a saw one.

[geysir]

....."de-politicising the poppy", which isn't really true at all, is it? The poppy will surely still be classified as a political symbol under the new rule (because it is a symbol that commemorates dead persons - which is one of FIFA's defining criteria - and is quite obviously of a political nature anyway); it's just that such symbols can now be permitted so long as the governing body and the two associations involved in a particular game where one wishes to wear a political symbol all agree to its wearing in advance.

Although that does raise the question; why outline "prohibiting" criteria at all if those criteria can simply be over-ruled by way of common agreement between opposing teams and the governing body? Assuming the two opposing associations are happy for a particular political symbol to be worn, what secondary criteria need to be satisfied for the exemption to be granted by the governing body if the primary criteria outlined above won't necessarily apply? On what grounds exactly can the governing body permit a team to wear something that explicitly falls foul of the rule? Will there be any further rule or advice to offer guidance in making such determinations or will it just be a case of the governing body playing it by ear on a case by case basis? .....
The poppy is both a commemoration and a charity. I'd assume the charity factor is the one that gets the poppy out of the overt political symbol tag.
The FAI's easter rising commemoration was about an event, a political event of sorts, an attempted coup d'état, no charity involvement.

If wearing the poppy does become Fifa legal, then in theory the FAI could do an easter lily commemoration, similar to the poppy, the easter lily commemorates dead persons and raises money for charitable purposes.

[DannyInvincible]

So is it the case that the poppy will no longer be deemed a political symbol at all, meaning the prohibitive rule will no longer apply to it, or is it the case that the poppy will still be deemed a political symbol under the relevant rule (because it commemorates dead persons), meaning the prohibition will still ordinarily apply, except for instances where the governing body and two opposing associations approve of its wearing?

My understanding, based on a few articles I've read on the matter (BBC, Telegraph and Guardian) is that the latter view is the case.

[geysir]

Then it will dealt with on a case by case issue.

[osarusan]

Well that's a can of worms if ever a saw one.

Agreed, makes a joke of the whole thing. There are definitely a notable number of people in NI who could make a case that they are offended by the aims/actions of the Poppy appeal.

[Mr_Parker]

What many, especially the media, have missed, is that this 'clarification' has been given by the IFAB, not FIFA. The IFAB is made up of 4 FIFA reps and 1 each from the English, Welsh, Scottish FA's and the IFA. So such clarification is not that surprising. Also, the reality that they have actually created a bigger mess hasn't dawned on many.

The northern press have completely missed the issue that this has now compounded for the IFA domestically, as this ruling does not just impact International football, but all levels.

[geysir]

I'd prefer the zero tolerance for any formal/organised on-pitch commemoration which has nothing to do with sport.
The cracks into FIFA's guidelines have been widening of late.
There was a recent disturbing precedent when Australia met Saudi Arabia in an important competitive fixture and permission was given by the Asian federation to hold a minutes silence for 2 Australians killed on the other side of the planet in some profile terrorist attack.
That was a blatant political gesture and one which had all the bigoted right wing political leaders purring out loud. Would they have a minutes silence as a gesture of solidarity for 2 children killed by a drunk driver in Melbourne? I doubt it.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Somewhat connected: Barcelona/Las Palmas played behind closed doors after the violence in the city today. Barca have a Catalunian flag sewn into their shirts, while Las Palmas have a Spanish flag on theirs. La Liga refused to postpone the match at Barca's request, threatened to dock them points: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2017/1001/908849-catalonia/