Eligibility proposal

[Blanchflower]

Well Northern Ireland have always had the option of playing any one entitled to a British passport even those who were not eligible to play for the Republic under any criteria, and who had no direct contact with the wee North unless I am greatly mistaken.

You are mistaken. It was only UK nationals not born in the UK. And that is no longer the case.


The FAI don't claim all the players in the six counties, just the ones who want to play for us. FIFA will do nothing about citizenship laws, to do so would embroil them in national politics and would set a precedent that would echo way beyond this issue.

Under the rules all NI players are eligible for the South. That means one FIFA member can call up all the players of another FIFA member. That is plainly unfair and the IFA should have been arguing that point, requesting FIFA to rule that birth/parentage requirements, etc. are necessary in cases like this where extra-territorial laws are involved.

No-one has said FIFA will do anything about citizenship laws - how could they? They are the governing body of a sport! The point is that FIFA should deal with its own rules.


so if BlanchFlower has seen the light and understood, does that mean that EG will also have?!
I have said all along that the current rules mean that anyone in NI is eligible for the South. My point is that the current rules should be changed.

[Cowboy]

Under the rules all NI players are eligible for the South. That means one FIFA member can call up all the players of another FIFA member. That is plainly unfair and the IFA should have been arguing that point, requesting FIFA to rule that birth/parentage requirements, etc. are necessary in cases like this where extra-territorial laws are involved.

No-one has said FIFA will do anything about citizenship laws - how could they? They are the governing body of a sport! The point is that FIFA should deal with its own rules.


I have said all along that the current rules mean that anyone in NI is eligible for the South. My point is that the current rules should be changed.

Why is it plainly unfair? What would be unfair is to prevent a player from playing for his chosen nationality. If players really want to play for NI then there is nothing preventing them from doing so. FIFA came up with the compromise as they no doubt realized that to support the IFA's position would require a rule change which they would be loathe to do. Of course they are a governing body of a sport which is why they do not want to get involved in a political issue.

[Blanchflower]

Why is it plainly unfair?
Er, let's see ... perhaps because one FIFA member gets all the players of another FIFA member to pick from in addition to its own players?


What would be unfair is to prevent a player from playing for his chosen nationality.
Players' choices are of necessity restricted to the eligibility rules.

The "unfairness" of not enabling Southern citizens without the necessary connections to play for the South would be an "unfairness" merely felt by the poor individual players themselves (bless 'em). There is a much greater unfairness being suffered in general terms by an entire FIFA member by allowing all its players to be eligible as of right for another rival FIFA member.

[youngirish]

The "unfairness" of not enabling Southern citizens without the necessary connections to play for the South would be an "unfairness" merely felt by the poor individual players themselves (bless 'em).
They have the necessary 'connections' as you call it. At least FIFA seem to think so and that's why they allow the FAI to pick such players.


There is a much greater unfairness being suffered in general terms by an entire FIFA member by allowing all its players to be eligible as of right for another rival FIFA member.
Yeah my heart bleeds for the members the IFA board because they are unable to prevent individuals in Northern Ireland from representing the country that they have always supported and considered themselves to be nationals of. I wish the IFA had been given more rights to curb those of the individual players which let's be honest is who this decision is really going to affect.

Are all the grapes more sour the further North you travel on this island?

[RogerMilla]

Are all the grapes more sour the further North you travel on this island?

Nah i'd say they're delighted in Donegal !

[Blanchflower]

They have the necessary 'connections' as you call it. At least FIFA seem to think so and that's why they allow the FAI to pick such players.

Er, yes, I know that:mad:. We're discussing a hypothetical situation in which birth/parentage, etc. criteria were used.

[Cowboy]

Er, let's see ... perhaps because one FIFA member gets all the players of another FIFA member to pick from in addition to its own players?

As I said before we only get to pick the players who want to play for us, IE those who do not wish to play for NI. I dont know why the NI guys cannot grasp this simple concept, they dont want to play for you.



Players' choices are of necessity restricted to the eligibility rules.

The "unfairness" of not enabling Southern citizens without the necessary connections to play for the South would be an "unfairness" merely felt by the poor individual players themselves (bless 'em). There is a much greater unfairness being suffered in general terms by an entire FIFA member by allowing all its players to be eligible as of right for another rival FIFA member.

Now it becomes clear that you give very little weight to the players individual preference which is what this is all about. Are you afraid that nobody would want to play for you?

[Superhoops]

......Under the rules all NI players are eligible for the South......

........I have said all along that the current rules mean that anyone in NI is eligible for the South. My point is that the current rules should be changed.


.....The "unfairness" of not enabling Southern citizens without the necessary connections to play for the South would be an "unfairness" merely felt by the poor individual players themselves (bless 'em). .....
Who is the 'South' and 'Southern citizens' you keep referring to? :mad:

To the best of my knowledge there is no nation called 'South of Ireland' or Southern Ireland' registered with FIFA, even though PROC would love to have their own registration! :D

However, if by the south you mean Cork, Kerry or Limerick then I am sure arrangements can be made without FIFA intervening, although it is more likely to be an issue for GAA teams rather than soccer!

[lopez]

I've just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading all that ****e! Utter madnessI just wasted 10 seconds reading your sh*te. :p

...The thing is, I disagree with yesterday's Indo (basically, they think Euro qualifying is all but over, "nothing to see"). Wrong. This game is still important, for overall position, bragging rights, momentum and the rest of it. As is the one in Belfast. Before it, our chance of qualifying is 1%- 2% ; but if we win and Spain don't against Sweden, that rises tenfold going into the last round on Wednesday week. That would be our biggest game since 1986- bring it on ;)The most difficult thing I think you'll have is beating Denmark.

[Blanchflower]

As I said before we only get to pick the players who want to play for us, IE those who do not wish to play for NI. I dont know why the NI guys cannot grasp this simple concept, they dont want to play for you.

They might, and probably would, want to play for us if they were ineligible for the South.



Now it becomes clear that you give very little weight to the players individual preference which is what this is all about. Are you afraid that nobody would want to play for you?
The players' individual preference is NOT what this is ALL about. On the contrary, that is only part of it. The main concern is not about individuals, but about the NI team put forward by the IFA - one of FIFA's members.

[lopez]

They might, and probably would, want to play for us if they were ineligible for the South.

The players' individual preference is NOT what this is ALL about. On the contrary, that is only part of it. The main concern is not about individuals, but about the NI team put forward by the IFA - one of FIFA's members.I admire your honesty.

[Blanchflower]

Who is the 'South' and 'Southern citizens' you keep referring to?

I think you probably know the answer to those questions, so I won't indulge you with an answer.


To the best of my knowledge there is no nation called 'South of Ireland' or Southern Ireland' registered with FIFA, even though PROC would love to have their own registration!

There's none called "Ireland", either, but I notice you haven't complained when other posters have used that terminology!:eek::mad:

[youngirish]

The players' individual preference is NOT what this is ALL about. On the contrary, that is only part of it. The main concern is not about individuals, but about the NI team put forward by the IFA - one of FIFA's members.
I don't want to get too soppy and deep but in a nation such as ours with all the oppression and associated conflict that it has endured over the centuries for anyone to state that the rights of a football association should outweigh the fundamental (and legal) rights of the individual really does show that some people still have a long way to go.

I can understand why NI fans are pi**ed off but they really don't have a leg to stand on. How would you feel if you were a football player and were forced to play for the ROI instead of the NI team that you obviously support and love? I'd say you'd be over the moon. I don't see too much difference with the previous scenario and this elligibility issue bar the shoe being on the other foot and the inconvenient (for some) placing of some borders in the last century.

If Clinton Morrison can play for the ROI with no objections from anyone then surely Darron Gibson in any fair minded individual's opinion should be able to also.

[Superhoops]

I think you probably know the answer to those questions, so I won't indulge you with an answer.


There's none called "Ireland", either, but I notice you haven't complained when other posters have used that terminology!:eek::mad:

Haven't seen any (but to be fair I haven't checked every post) but have seen plently of references to 'us', 'FAI' 'Republic'.

[geysir]

Er, yes, I know that:mad:. We're discussing a hypothetical situation in which birth/parentage, etc. criteria were used.
But as you have argued that it should be part of the fair solution, it becomes indirectly part of your primary argument :)
If the Republic had all of a sudden decided to give all those born in the Isle of Man, Irish citizenship and with a wink invited some of their footballers to declare for us, you would have a case.
As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles.
That was part of our past history but also present history (GFA) has also supported those full constitutional rights that Northern nationalists have earned.
It is not by a FIFA technicality that NI born are entitled to play for the Republic, it is a carefully thought out, FIFA player's rights thinking, set into their statutes. FIFA´s statutes already, with a purpose, measure up a player's rights quite highly against a Federation's rights.
To paraphrase your argument that FIFA should change current rules re eligibility,
I would refer you to the 'unfortunate' IFA submission that 'current FIFA rules be applied properly' :)

[Blanchflower]

I don't want to get too soppy and deep but in a nation such as ours with all the oppression and associated conflict that it has endured over the centuries for anyone to state that the rights of a football association should outweigh the fundamental (and legal) rights of the individual really does show that some people still have a long way to go.

The individual has no legal "rights" - he or she can only play for whatever team he is eligible for according to the rules as decided by FIFA.


How would you feel if you were a football player and were forced to play for the ROI instead of the NI team that you obviously support and love?

If I wasn't from NI and didn't qualify for them, I'd be disappointed, but would accept it.


If Clinton Morrison can play for the ROI with no objections from anyone then surely Darron Gibson in any fair minded individual's opinion should be able to also.
Where is Clinton Morrison from, how does he qualify, and which country did he switch from to play from ROI?


But as you have argued that it should be part of the fair solution, it becomes indirectly part of your primary argument

What becomes "indirectly part of my primary argument"?


If the Republic had all of a sudden decided to give all those born in the Isle of Man, Irish citizenship and with a wink invited some of their footballers to declare for us, you would have a case.
As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles.


1. The FAI doesn't have any (divided) land.

2. The actual jurisdictions of each FIFA member is more important than the political views of individual people within those jurisdictions. Many people in former Soviet republics lament the collapse of the USSR, but that doesn't mean that their views override the international boundaries between Russia and those republics.


That was part of our past history but also present history (GFA) has also supported those full constitutional rights that Northern nationalists have earned.

No-one's saying that those "full constitutional rights" should be affected in any way.:eek:


It is not by a FIFA technicality that NI born are entitled to play for the Republic, it is a carefully thought out, FIFA player's rights thinking, set into their statutes.

Nonsense. NI players are eligible for the South simply because of the South's citizenship laws. If you're trying to suggest that FIFA drew up its statutes in order to fall into line with the citizenship laws of one individual member, I think you're off your rocker.


FIFA´s statutes already, with a purpose, measure up a player's rights quite highly against a Federation's rights.

Indeed. But in the case of NI, the balance is too far in favour of the individual, due to the South's extra-territorial laws.


To paraphrase your argument that FIFA should change current rules re eligibility,
I would refer you to the 'unfortunate' IFA submission that 'current FIFA rules be applied properly'
You don't need to. I have been aware all along that the IFA was using the wrong argument.

[lopez]

Haven't seen any (but to be fair I haven't checked every post) but have seen plently of references to 'us', 'FAI' 'Republic'.I have called 'us' Ireland. Why? Simple. That's the name of the country. If you are going to call it Republic of Ireland then let's have Republic of France, Federal Republic of Germany, etc. in every post. Northern Ireland are playing Denmark on Saturday? No they're not. They're playing the Kingdom of Denmark. Please use the coutry's proper name in all posts. Spain the following wednesday. Please don't insult it with anything less than 'Kingdom of Spain'. :rolleyes:

If NI was an independent state - two Koreas or two Congos or what Vietnam, Germany etc used to be - then I'd concede that proper titles should be used to avoid confusion. But what you have is one country called Ireland and one - wrongly imo fwiw - a region of Britain (or the United Kingdom of etc. etc.)

[lopez]

...Many people in former Soviet republics lament the collapse of the USSR, but that doesn't mean that their views override the international boundaries between Russia and those republics...Does Russia grant citizenship to those of Russian ethnic backgrounds in their former states - i.e. those not granted citizenship through ancestry?

[Blanchflower]

I have called 'us' Ireland.

I look forward to Superhoops correcting you.

By the way, your problem in using "Ireland" is that it's a misnomer - there are two countries, and two teams in Ireland.

[Blanchflower]

Does Russia grant citizenship to those of Russian ethnic backgrounds in their former states - i.e. those not granted citizenship through ancestry?

I don't know, but the Latvian, Ukrainian, Estonian, etc. FAs, might be interested in the IFA's predicament and might be supportive of rules to clarify situations such as this. The Bosnian FA in particular would be interested. The IFA should have been lobbying with these FAs.

[tricky_colour]

Maybe FIFA could enflame the tensions between India and Pakistan too,
and vapourise us all in a nuclear holocaust, afterall thats what it's for :D

[cavan_fan]

I don't know, but the Latvian, Ukrainian, Estonian, etc. FAs, might be interested in the IFA's predicament and might be supportive of rules to clarify situations such as this. The Bosnian FA in particular would be interested. The IFA should have been lobbying with these FAs.

Using precedents wont anyone born in Soviet Union (or whose parent grandparents were born in Soviet Union) be eligible for all Soviet teams (or just Russia?)

The problem we are now getting is people with grandparent born post partition, but I'd have thought they have another 50 years

[OwlsFan]

I see David O'Leary's nephew is now playing for Scotland at underage. He plays for Kilmarnock.

[geysir]

]2. The actual jurisdictions of each FIFA member is more important than the political views of individual people within those jurisdictions. Many people in former Soviet republics lament the collapse of the USSR, but that doesn't mean that their views override the international boundaries between Russia and those republics.

Where does FIFA say anything about the jurisdictions of a federation member being more important in Article 15 ?
Where did you get that statement from?

Art 15
"Any person holding the nationality of a country is eligible to
the representative teams of the Association of that country."

And as pointed out I am not talking about political views I am talking about constitutional rights which are infinitly stronger when they harmonize with FIFA's existing statutes.


No-one's saying that those "full constitutional rights" should be affected in any way.:eek:
Part of the constitutional right is automatic citizenship, which is recognised by Article 15. So obviously the full constitutional rights that allow anybody born on the Island full unconditional citizenship is the context for my reference and it mates perfectly with FIFA statutes..


Nonsense. NI players are eligible for the South simply because of the South's citizenship laws. If you're trying to suggest that FIFA drew up its statutes in order to fall into line with the citizenship laws of one individual member, I think you're off your rocker.
Carefull now.
NI born are entitled to declare for the Republic because FIFA´s statutes allow them to do so. FIFA statutes recognise the full unconditional citizenship that the Republic grant to all Island born as being fully compliant with FIFA law and the spirit of the Law.
Do you think that a law is just a jumble of letters which appear to fit and look nice?
The spirit of the Annex criteria is make sure that new citizens have proper ties to their new nation.
Why do you think that was brought in? because the spirit of what existed before was being violated not the rules themselves.

[EalingGreen]

I have called 'us' Ireland. Why? Simple. That's the name of the country. If you are going to call it Republic of Ireland then let's have Republic of France, Federal Republic of Germany, etc. in every post. Northern Ireland are playing Denmark on Saturday? No they're not. They're playing the Kingdom of Denmark. Please use the coutry's proper name in all posts. Spain the following wednesday. Please don't insult it with anything less than 'Kingdom of Spain'. :rolleyes:

If NI was an independent state - two Koreas or two Congos or what Vietnam, Germany etc used to be - then I'd concede that proper titles should be used to avoid confusion. But what you have is one country called Ireland and one - wrongly imo fwiw - a region of Britain (or the United Kingdom of etc. etc.)

"Ireland" may be the name of a country (as well as an island) but it is NOT the name of an International Association Football team, so your argument doesn't stand up. Nor does your point about e.g the Republic of France or Kingdom of Denmark, since there is only one team called "France" or "Denmark"

There are two international football teams in Ireland and have been since 1923(?). For a period, the newer of these (i.e. that of the FAIFS) attempted to claim the name "Ireland", which the IFA had been using for their team since 1880.

To be honest, it didn't matter a great deal in the early years, until both teams began to express an interest in playing in the World Cup. Obviously, as far as FIFA were concerned, it would have been silly to have two teams both calling themselves "Ireland", so in 1950(?) they issued an instruction that for World Cup matches (and later for European Nations games) the FAI team must be called "Republic of Ireland" and the IFA team "Northern Ireland". This is the official designation to be used e.g. on programmes and scoreboards etc.
(Interestingly, however, the IFA was still allowed to use the name "Ireland" for non-WC or Euro games, e.g. for British Championship games, a practice they followed until around 1970)

Of course, it can hardly be objectionable should fans of either team use the term "Ireland" in everyday circumstances. However, people who wilfully use it wrongly, presumably in order to prove some sort of petty point, merely expose their prejudice - especially since in written form, "ROI" and "NI" are by far the easiest to type (as well as being correct)

http://bp3.blogger.com/_BIS_R7_5YVU/RkN16fhZLCI/AAAAAAAAA6g/21e-qxzRPeM/s1600-h/FR+1999-05-29+Rep+Ireland+Away.jpg

http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=irl/countryInfo.html

[Blanchflower]

.

Where does FIFA say anything about the jurisdictions of a federation member being more important in Article 15 ?


Don't know. Who said they did?


.
Where did you get that statement from?


What statement?


.
Art 15
"Any person holding the nationality of a country is eligible to
the representative teams of the Association of that country."

And as pointed out I am not talking about political views I am talking about constitutional rights which are infinitly stronger when they harmonize with FIFA's existing statutes.
Part of the constitutional right is automatic citizenship, which is recognised by Article 15. So obviously the full constitutional rights that allow anybody born on the Island full unconditional citizenship is the context for my reference and it mates perfectly with FIFA statutes..

Of course it "mates perfectly" with FIFA statutes - I've already said that NI players are eligible for the SOuth. I'm arguing for a CHANGE to the statutes!


.
NI born are entitled to declare for the Republic because FIFA´s statutes allow them to do so.

Yes, I know.

.FIFA statutes recognise the full unconditional citizenship that the Republic grant to all Island born as being fully compliant with FIFA law and the spirit of the Law.

Yes, I know. I've said that several times and have been saying it for weeks.


Do you think that a law is just a jumble of letters which appear to fit and look nice?

No. Do you?:rolleyes:


The spirit of the Annex criteria is make sure that new citizens have proper ties to their new nation.
Why do you think that was brought in? because the spirit of what existed before was being violated not the rules themselves.
Indeed. Hence the rules needed to be changed. Same as now - the South's citizenship laws being extra-territorial in nature create a disadvantage for one of FIFA's members, and potentially a dangerous precedent elsewhere.

[youngirish]

Indeed. Hence the rules needed to be changed. Same as now - the South's citizenship laws being extra-territorial in nature create a disadvantage for one of FIFA's members, and potentially a dangerous precedent elsewhere.
Why do they need to be changed? So the IFA can prevent people from playing football for what they consider to be their national team to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in some way? I don't think the South's citzenship laws are the problem here.

Tbh I find it hard to feel too sorry for the IFA now that they are worried that they are going to lose some players since they have for a long time promoted a team that has only represented one part of the political divide in Northern Ireland. Yes things have improved recently but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North. What right now, therefore do the IFA have to complain if a few of those same Nationalists want to play for a team that they feel more so represents them as Irish people.

[geysir]

Don't know. Who said they did?

What statement?

This statement
[QUOTE]The actual jurisdictions of each FIFA member is more important than the political views of individual people within those jurisdictions
This statement had nothing of relevance to my post or anything I wrote and nothing of relevance to the FIFA statute I was talking about. It is constructed like a statement, a declaration of fact. The use of the word actual confers statement value.
I was strictly referring to a highly relevant constitutional right not a belief.
Go back and read what you wrote in reply and the context of your reply instead of engaging with a silly "what statement? " reply

[Blanchflower]

Why do they need to be changed?
So that one FIFA member no longer has all the players from another FIFA member to choose from as well as its own players.[/quote]


I don't think the South's citzenship laws are the problem here.
Clearly they are, for they are the reason that the South is able to have all NI players as well as its own.


Tbh I find it hard to feel too sorry for the IFA now that they are worried that they are going to lose some players since they have for a long time promoted a team that has only represented one part of the political divide in Northern Ireland.
I think that's a very unfair statement given recent developments.


but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North.
Are you suggesting there should be religious quotas in the NI team?

Are you suggesting that NI managers discriminate against RC players when picking their teams? This is an outrageous insinuation.:mad:

[Blanchflower]

This statement had nothing of relevance to my post or anything I wrote and nothing of relevance to the FIFA statute I was talking about. It is constructed like a statement, a declaration of fact. The use of the word actual confers statement value.

It's a statement of the obvious. Which do you think FIFA is more concerned about: the integrity of its member organisations, or the individual political beliefs of individual players?:eek:

[geysir]

It's a statement of the obvious. Which do you think FIFA is more concerned about: the integrity of its member organisations, or the individual political beliefs of individual players?:eek:
If you want to be taken serious you make a statement of the obvious where it is obviously relevant.
In its context it demonstrated that you couldn't tell the difference in importance between a political viewpoint and a right enshrined in the constitution which FIFA fully endorse because it is a constitutional right.

It also imo belittles that constitutional right to a mere political belief.

[Blanchflower]

If you want to be taken serious you make a statement of the obvious where it is obviously relevant.
In its context it demonstrated that you couldn't tell the difference in importance between a political viewpoint and a right enshrined in the constitution which FIFA fully endorse because it is a constitutional right.

It also imo belittles that constitutional right to a mere political belief.

You wrote this:

As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles.

Thus implying that when FIFA drew up its eligibilty rules they did so having studied Southern Ireland's constitution.:eek:

Absolute nonsense. FIFA wrote its statutes for all its members and not for individual members' constitutions or citizenship laws; and not because they were so hurt at the thought of the poor oppressed Irishmen's land:eek: having been divided:eek: against their wishes!

The wishes of individual players, and the constitutions and laws of individual states are not FIFA's main concern. FIFA's main concern is to run international football on as fair a basis as they can and make rules on that basis.

Hence my comments.

[geysir]

Now I see the beginnings of why you got so hysterical.

Thus implying that when FIFA drew up its eligibilty rules they did so having studied Southern Ireland's constitution.
No I seriously doubt that FIFA had Ireland in mind when constituting their eligibility criteria :)
Rather I mean't that the Irish citizenship situation in a divided country is something which fell effortlessly under the umbrella of FIFA Article 15.

Do you have any argument to present as to why FIFA should switch the whole bias of their eligibility critera from supporting the players to supporting the federation?
Have you got an argument other than fear which would support this?

[lopez]

I don't know, but the Latvian, Ukrainian, Estonian, etc. FAs, might be interested in the IFA's predicament and might be supportive of rules to clarify situations such as this. The Bosnian FA in particular would be interested. The IFA should have been lobbying with these FAs.Except that some of these countries (Bosnia excluded) put preconditions (learning the language) to citizenship - something the EU is seeking to address - for ethnic Russians gaining citizenship, so that would have been a pointless excersise. Mind you, as with Gather Round's hypothetical non-citizen Irish born footballer, I'm sure that a passport would be presented if a footballer was deemed good enough.

...Are you suggesting that NI managers discriminate against RC players when picking their teams? This is an outrageous insinuation.:mad:Oh spare us the mock indignation. F*ck off back to ourweeminds if you going to come all high and mighty about this subject. :rolleyes:

[Blanchflower]

No I seriously doubt that FIFA had Ireland in mind when constituting their eligibility criteria

So, on the one hand, you doubt that FIFA had Ireland in mind when constituting its eligibility criteria, but on the other hand: "As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles".

Right.:confused:




Rather I mean't that the Irish citizenship situation in a divided country is something which fell effortlessly under the umbrella of FIFA Article 15.

Only because of the South's extra-territorial laws - possibly unique in the world.



Do you have any argument to present as to why FIFA should switch the whole bias of their eligibility critera from supporting the players to supporting the federation?


The eligibility criteria aren't about "supporting the players": they're about deciding who is and also who isn't eligible.

[Blanchflower]

Except that some of these countries (Bosnia excluded) put preconditions (learning the language) to citizenship - something the EU is seeking to address - for ethnic Russians gaining citizenship, so that would have been a pointless excersise. Mind you, as with Gather Round's hypothetical non-citizen Irish born footballer, I'm sure that a passport would be presented if a footballer was deemed good enough.

Sorry - don't know what point you're making.


Oh spare us the mock indignation. F*ck off back to ourweeminds if you going to come all high and mighty about this subject.
Young Irish said "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. He is clearly alleging discrimination in the selection of teams.:mad:

[Blanchflower]

Sorry - don't know what point you're making.



Sorry - I do now after re-reading.

[Superhoops]

I look forward to Superhoops correcting you.

By the way, your problem in using "Ireland" is that it's a misnomer - there are two countries, and two teams in Ireland.

I think Ealing Green 'corrected' it adequately later down the thread. In FIFA/UEFA parlance there is the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, no Ireland and no Southern Ireland.

As you so eloquently put it earlier, I think you know the point I was making.

[geysir]

So, on the one hand, you doubt that FIFA had Ireland in mind when constituting its eligibility criteria, but on the other hand: "As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles".

Right.:confused:
Only because of the South's extra-territorial laws - possibly unique in the world.
The eligibility criteria aren't about "supporting the players": they're about deciding who is and also who isn't eligible.
:D
Yeah sure, I really believed FIFA had a pre release copy of Dev´s constitution before they formulated Article 15. and based all their thinking on it. Probably the beneficial rewards from having sleeper Fenians all over the continent in all high places.

Eligibility criteria? I have said it´s weighed in the player´s favour, look at the terms for those players who qualify:, This is the reality,
they have a right to choose and a right to change, a right to reside elsewhere and play for the new country.
A right to change up to the age of 21.
It is the player who must submit a written request if he wants to declare for another country and his choice is free from any kind of obstacle being placed in his way by the association he is currently playing for.
FIFA will also interfere if a countries type of "citizenship" does not offer the player the full rights accorded to other citizens.
The UK Agreement is stifling in comparison.

Is there any sign of a support for the argument from you that FIFA should change their proven sound Statutes?
The following oddbits do not stand up to closer scrutiny.

"one FIFA member claims all the players of another FIFA member as its own by virtue of an extra-territorial citizenship law"

Fear that somehow this FIFA proposal be "potentially a dangerous precedent elsewhere".

[Blanchflower]

Yeah sure, I really believed FIFA had a pre release copy of Dev´s constitution before they formulated Article 15. and based all their thinking on it.
So why did you say that "their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles"?:confused:



Eligibility criteria? I have said it´s weighed in the player´s favour, look at the terms for those players who qualify:, This is the reality,
they have a right to choose and a right to change, a right to reside elsewhere and play for the new country.
A right to change up to the age of 21.
It is the player who must submit a written request if he wants to declare for another country and his choice is free from any kind of obstacle being placed in his way by the association he is currently playing for.
FIFA will also interfere if a countries type of "citizenship" does not offer the player the full rights accorded to other citizens.
The UK Agreement is stifling in comparison.

And? I know what the rules are ... My point is the rules should change.



Is there any sign of a support for the argument from you that FIFA should change their proven sound Statutes?

I've no idea. I'm not a delegate to FIFA. I also doubt whether the IFA has done any lobbying. (By the way, the statutes are modified regularly.)

[geysir]

And? I know what the rules are ... My point is the rules should change.

I was replying to this 'statement' you made, It doesn't read as a proposal.


The eligibility criteria aren't about "supporting the players": they're about deciding who is and also who isn't eligible.


I've no idea. I'm not a delegate to FIFA. I also doubt whether the IFA has done any lobbying. (By the way, the statutes are modified regularly.)
Statutes are modified, I don't know how often, I can imagine in a rapidly changing Football enviorment that some do.
There would have to be a good reason.
I do not see any argument of substance to change good Eligibility Statutes :)
Is lobbying a roundabout way of scratching backs in order to exert external influence on to the FIFA legal department.?

[Blanchflower]

I was replying to this 'statement' you made, It doesn't read as a proposal.

It would be helpful for the purposes of discussion if you quoted the statement.



Statutes are modified, I don't know how often, I can imagine in a rapidly changing Football enviorment that some do.
There would have to be a good reason.

I should have thought that goes without saying.



I do not see any argument of substance to change good Eligibility Statutes

Nor me. But there have been, and no doubt will continue to be substantial arguments for modifying statutes to deal with anomalies and unforeseen consequences.



Is lobbying a roundabout way of scratching backs in order to exert external influence on to the FIFA legal department.?
I don't doubt that sort of thing goes on.

[youngirish]

Are you suggesting there should be religious quotas in the NI team?

Are you suggesting that NI managers discriminate against RC players when picking their teams? This is an outrageous insinuation.:mad:
Nope and I'm sure you're aware Blanchflower that I never suggested anything as such. But surely with GSTQ as an anthem and a flag based on the St George's cross it's easy to clearly identify the leanings of the team more towards the Unionist than the Nationalist community. Also no matter how much good work is done to make the team's fans more representative of the cross community (and I praise such work) there still remains IMO a secterian element to the support (perhaps a small one but it's there) no matter how much the average NI fan would like it to go away. Such secterian elements surely discourage nationalist fans (and some players) from being associated with the team.

[lopez]

Sorry - don't know what point you're making.
I see you've got what I was pointing out, but for others this is what I was saying. Estonia (at least) are in trouble with the EU for basing citizenship on the ability to speak Estonian. This discriminates against some people whose family has lived in Estonia for centuries if not millenia. Therefore, with such a policy they have no right to complain if these people play for another country. Secondly, governments are astute at fast-tracking or bypassing citizenship applications to enable sportsman to represent their country. Estonia, as an example, I'd doubt would not consider an Estonian - Russian (or a descendant) citizenship if he was a gifted footballer who spoke no Estonian.

Elsewhere, citizenship laws have been based, without exaggerating, on race. Germany's until recently would not grant - apart through a long winded and often unsuccessfull process - citizenship to Germans born of foreign nationals. However they would grant citizenship to Soviets (Russians and Kazahks) of German ethnic background, even though the German born ancestors left in the 18th and 19th century. This was stopped a few years after the fall of the Soviet Union because of the mass influx of people claiming German ancestry, but prior to this the odd defector needed only a family nazi party card, from the German occupation of the Western USSR, to gain citizenship.


Young Irish said "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. He is clearly alleging discrimination in the selection of teams.:mad:Young Irish never mentioned religion and never mentioned that the team did not have enough of any particular religion, or that the IFA picked players by religion. He said it was not equally representative of both communities.

To me this means that NI being a British 'country' and that the symbols representing nationalists are absent: e.g. The Irish flag and Irish national anthem. The same is argued of the Irish rugby team, or any 6C Gaelic football team being not equally representative of unionists, even though rule 21, despite being perceived as anti-Unionist was primarily anti Catholic (Catholic policemen and soldiers). You will no doubt counter that these are foreign symbols. That's your opinion, but as someone has already said this stance displays a total lack of understanding of your neighbours identity.

You're welcome to argue about rule changes - I would have argued the same if FIFA ruled against us - but the problem is that, to a certain extent, the rights of the players will remain paramount. There are huge differences between the 'Qatar case' and ethnic Russians, Hungarians and Bosnian Serbs as the citizenship laws are different. The first is centred just on ability, the latter either denies or grants citizenship to all ethnics born outside the present state. Russia grants citizenship to all 'stateless citizens' who were former USSR citizens or those within the former USSR who speak Russian. This means that Russia - whose FA has far more clout than the FAI or IFA within FIFA - will be liable to the same FIFA rulling as Ireland.

http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=11&lid=591&less=false

[Blanchflower]

Nope and I'm sure you're aware Blanchflower that I never suggested anything as such.

You said: "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. There is a clear insinuation in those comments that there is discrimination in the selection of teams.


But surely with GSTQ as an anthem and a flag based on the St George's cross it's easy to clearly identify the leanings of the team more towards the Unionist than the Nationalist community.


First, I would ask you to stop peddling lies about the NI flag, which is not "based on the St George's Cross": it is based on the cross in the Ulster provincial banner.

Second, the "leanings of the team" can in no way be ascertained by the flag and anthem: the players have no input to either of these emblems.

Third, there is no evidence of any players refusing to play for NI because of a flag or anthem, or of players not being picked due to their religion or political beliefs. On the contrary, NI teams have always included players from both traditions, and continue to do so.


Also no matter how much good work is done to make the team's fans more representative of the cross community (and I praise such work) there still remains IMO a secterian element to the support (perhaps a small one but it's there) no matter how much the average NI fan would like it to go away.
That may be the case, but that does not provide evidence in discrimination in the picking of teams.:mad:

[Blanchflower]

Young Irish never mentioned religion and never mentioned that the team did not have enough of any particular religion, or that the IFA picked players by religion. He said it was not equally representative of both communities.

Zzzzzzzz. Like you don't know that each "community" is largely defined by religious affiliation.



To me this means that NI being a British 'country' and that the symbols representing nationalists are absent: e.g. The Irish flag and Irish national anthem.


Why on earth would the IFA fly the flag of another, rival country at its matches. What nonsense.:eek:

[EalingGreen]

But surely with GSTQ as an anthem and a flag based on the St George's cross it's easy to clearly identify the leanings of the team more towards the Unionist than the Nationalist community. Also no matter how much good work is done to make the team's fans more representative of the cross community (and I praise such work) there still remains IMO a secterian element to the support (perhaps a small one but it's there) no matter how much the average NI fan would like it to go away.

Have you been to an NI match in the last five years, YI? I would guess almost certainly not; as someone who has attended half of our games (H & A) during that period, I can tell you that your opinion is both wrong and misleading.

The phrase "there remains a sectarian element" [amongst the support] implies that this is manifested in the behaviour of that support at matches. This simply is not so - in my experience, not my opinion. I could also cite the experience of the two Catholics (one English-born) whom I roomed with in Latvia two months back.

Of course, if you were to say that amongst the NI support there are people who hold sectarian views, no reasonable person would disagree - it would be a miracle if there weren't.

But that is no different from saying that those many ROI fans who live in NI must also include a sectarian element amongst their number. Yet I would never characterise the ROI support in the way you do the NI support, nor dare suggest that no Protestant, from ROI or NI, could support the ROI team for fear of experiencing sectarianism, even despite the ugly abuse which a Danish player, mistaken for a Glasgow Ranger, experienced a while back. Nor would I suggest that no Jew could follow the ROI team either, despite the disgraceful anti-Semitic abuse, as reported on this site, when the Israeli team visited Dublin recently.

The fact is, what is important is how the fans behave at matches and the behaviour of NI fans at games these days is no bar to any Catholic (or Nationalist, for that matter) attending and enjoying the game. Just as such behaviour is no bar to any Catholic/Nationalist player representing his country. And above all, it should be noted that this happier situtation exists amongst other reasons precisely because the average fan wants it to be so.

P.S. On a technical point, you are also wrong about the NI flag. It is NOT based on the St.George's Cross. When originally designed by the Ulster King of Arms in Dublin in 1924(!), it was based on the old provincial flag of Ulster. As such, it incorporates not just the Red Hand, but also the De Burgh Cross (the De Burghs having been Earls of Ulster at one stage). This cross is coincidentally similar, but not identical to, St. George's Cross, which is noticeably thinner.
Therefore, it is thought that the UKofA took the old Ulster provincial flag and added a crown (UK) and six-pointed star (i.e 6 counties) for NI, but changed the background colour to white to make it distinctively different from that on which it was based.

[youngirish]

You said: "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. There is a clear insinuation in those comments that there is discrimination in the selection of teams.

First, I would ask you to stop peddling lies about the NI flag, which is not "based on the St George's Cross": it is based on the cross in the Ulster provincial banner.

Second, the "leanings of the team" can in no way be ascertained by the flag and anthem: the players have no input to either of these emblems.

Third, there is no evidence of any players refusing to play for NI because of a flag or anthem, or of players not being picked due to their religion or political beliefs. On the contrary, NI teams have always included players from both traditions, and continue to do so.


That may be the case, but that does not provide evidence in discrimination in the picking of teams.:mad:
Blanchflower if I gave the impression that the IFA disriminated in any way when picking Nationalists for the team then I apologise as this was not the point I was trying to make.

As for the flag and anthem I think you realistically must admit that they both only serve to obstruct more Nationalists from identifying with and therefore playing for the team. Would you rather play for an Ireland team playing Amhrán na bhFiann as an anthem and using the tricolour as a flag or another Ireland team playing GSTQ as an anthem with the Union Jack and Ulster Banner (St George's Cross) waving in the stands? I rest my case your honour.

As for the Ulster Banner, it is based on a combination of the St George's Cross on the English flag and the flag of the province Ulster as far as I'm aware. Maybe someone can back me up on this though so I don't have to search the internet though I'm open to being proven wrong.

[youngirish]

I now just have to go and prove EG wrong on both his main points just for the sole reason that he says things with so much conviction that he's right (he even convinces the less gifted on here amongst us) even when they are 100% incorrect.

Read that batman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_banner

Or to summarise:

The flag is taken from the coat of arms granted in 1924 which is based on the flag of England[1][2][3] and the flag of the Irish province of Ulster [4], with the addition of a crown to symbolise the loyalty of Ulster unionists to the British Monarchy.

Not very pro Nationalist is it?

And have a look that this. Not 5 years ago is it?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cardiff+sash&search=Search

As an Irish Nationalist and Catholic from the South I don't find that support very welcoming. Maybe the sound was added later though (I'm sure you'll claim it was).

[Drumcondra 69er]

But that is no different from saying that those many ROI fans who live in NI must also include a sectarian element amongst their number. Yet I would never characterise the ROI support in the way you do the NI support, nor dare suggest that no Protestant, from ROI or NI, could support the ROI team for fear of experiencing sectarianism, even despite the ugly abuse which a Danish player, mistaken for a Glasgow Ranger, experienced a while back. Nor would I suggest that no Jew could follow the ROI team either, despite the disgraceful anti-Semitic abuse, as reported on this site, when the Israeli team visited Dublin recently.



Come on, the abuse that that Danish lad got was pure tounge in cheek comedy booing, as soon as the stadium announcer corrected his mistake the lad (Peter Madsen) started getting cheered every time he got the ball. There were Irish players getting booed for tackling him, in no way was it ugly and the media hyped it up beyond recognition to try and make a story of it. Maybe the media didn't get the joke but it was obvious that good natured banter was all it was in the crowd.

As for the anti Israel feelking at the game, I'd suggest that that was more down to the politics that country involves itself in (hence the number of Palestine flags at the game) and the constant play acting of their team, in particular their keeper, rather then any specific anti semitism.