Player eligibility row

[Mr_Parker]

Good Ol' Nige is hoping for common sense to prevail tomorrow. Is he switching allegiance too?

Nigel up for FIFA battle

Article in full..

IFA TAKE ON THE BOSS
IFA in Lausanne to tackle FIFA chief over player eligibility row

THIS is it ...
The last throw of the dice.
No more chances, no more appeals.
The Irish Football Association must tomorrow convince the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne that the most powerful man in football, FIFA President Sepp Blatter, was wrong to support the Republic in the eligibility row concerning a Northern Ireland-born player.
An IFA delegation led by Chief Executive Patrick Nelson, President Raymond Kennedy and two lawyers will aim to prove FIFA are going against their own rules and statutes by allowing the Football Association of Ireland to select players born in Northern Ireland who have no affiliation with the Republic.
Under FIFA statutes a player can only perform for a country if he is born in that particular nation or his parents/grandparents come from that country or if he has lived for two years continuously on the territory of the relevant association.
However 16 months ago, while at a FIFA conference at the Slieve Donard hotel in Newcastle, Co Down, Blatter stunned Irish FA chiefs and Northern Ireland fans by insisting the Republic is entitled to select any player born in Northern Ireland who holds an Irish passport due to the Good Friday Agreement.
This ruling by Blatter, it seems, totally flies in the face of his and FIFA’s own rules.
While the FAI celebrated what they believed was victory in the case, the IFA took advice before deciding to battle FIFA head-on at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.
The Irish FA in recent years have lost three players — Darron Gibson, Marc Wilson and Shane Duffy — to the Republic, despite these young guns being born in Northern Ireland and playing for IFA under-age sides.
While the IFA has no major objections with Duffy and Wilson changing allegiance as they qualify through the parent/grandparent rule, those in power at Windsor Avenue believe FIFA, in line with their statutes, should have stopped the FAI from selecting Londonderry-born Gibson, as he has no family connections with the Republic.
The IFA fear Northern Ireland could lose more young players to the FAI this way and so, after failing with FIFA, they feel they were left with no option but to file their submission with CAS.
Northern Ireland manager Nigel Worthington is tired of losing players to the Republic who have come through the IFA under-age system and he has called for “common sense” to prevail in Lausanne.
“We have got to be positive and believe that the CAS will find in our favour,” says Worthington.
“I see it as a black and white decision. There can no longer be any ‘ifs, buts or maybes’. That is not good for the Association and those coaches working with young players and selecting teams.
“We need to clarify the situation and I just hope common sense prevails.
“I’ve said from day one that the association is right and proper in taking the case to the CAS and trying to show FIFA the errors of their ways because no-one else is looking after us. We have to look after ourselves.
“We produced, in Darron Gibson and Shane Duffy, two very good players who will be around the top end of football for years to come. We put time and effort as an association into their international careers, as have the coaches who worked with them over the years.
“When the time comes, there is a loophole there that has been exploited and that’s not right.
“We need that dealt with firmly by people at the top end of football.
“This is similar to the ongoing row about goal-line technology. Common sense tells you FIFA should introduce goal-line technology.
“It makes sense for FIFA to bring in video goal-line technology and it makes sense for CAS to back our case.”
The Irish FA will put forward their arguments tomorrow, but a decision from CAS isn’t expected until later this week. This time, if the ruling goes against the IFA — there is no avenue for appeal. They really are at the last chance saloon...

[Sullivinho]

"This is similar to the ongoing row about goal-line technology. Common sense tells you FIFA should introduce goal-line technology. It makes sense for FIFA to bring in video goal-line technology and it makes sense for CAS to back our case."

That would be the same goal-line technology that the IFA voted against when given a chance to decide it's fate, thus consigning it to oblivion for the forseeable future aye?

[Gather round]

That would be the same goal-line technology that the IFA voted against when given a chance to decide it's fate, thus consigning it to oblivion for the forseeable future aye?

The same, although I don't see the problem with Nige contradicting what some other IFA hack said at the last FIFA international board meeting. I doubt they had an earlier meeting to mandate the delegate. He may simply have expressed a personal view, or followed Onkel Sepp's lead.

As Blatter seems now simply to have changed his mind under gentle pressure after the Tevez/ Neuer incidents, the foreseeable future looks unnecessarily pessimistic. You could see it trailed in the next U-20 or u-21 competition, say.

[Charlie Darwin]

I think most people actively involved in the game support goal-line technology. It seems to mainly be technocrats and players from the good old days before there were nets in the goals who oppose it on ideological grounds.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Answering my own question -ruling not expected for several weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/irish/8836124.stm

[DannyInvincible]

Of course I accept that kids born in NI to non-Irish parents may not be eligible either.

This is indeed the effect of the amendment and current legislation.

If the latter, that does reassure my concern, thanks.

I've come across this: http://www.unhcr.ie/statelessness.html

Not sure how recent it is, though, as no date has been provided, but it appears that the legislation as it is currently allows for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the possibility of waiving the naturalisation requirements otherwise in place when it comes to the matter of a stateless person, both 'de jure' and 'de facto'. However, it does mention:

Currently UNHCR has noted that there are no procedures in which stateless persons can have their status considered. The lack of identification impacts on stateless persons’ ability to get, for instance, stay permits, travel documents, and to make representation to the Minister to waive the naturalisation requirements as specified in Section 16 (g) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 as amended.

I'm not sure how all this operates in practice. It doesn't appear, either, from that, at least, that Irish citizenship will be conferred automatically onto stateless persons. Although, the legislation, which I've decided to take a look at again, appears to contradict that notion somewhat: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/conso...dationINCA.pdf

You'll see there that section 6 (3) states: "A person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she is not entitled to citizenship of any other country."

If FIFA replaced their grandparentage rule with one only referring parents, it would have a similar effect. Plenty of proud RoI and NI internationals wouldn't have been allowed to play, but who says that would have denied them any part of their proud patriotism?

At least if FIFA did that, it would apply evenly across the board, so I imagine any qualms with it would have less validity. If FIFA were to restrict the eligibility of certain Irish nationals by birthright whilst allowing others in possession of the exact same status to play, it would appear unfair to me in that it would impinge on a certain newly-created sub-category of Irish national by introducing an arbitrary dichotomy within a specific status of national as opposed to between certain statuses of nationals. That's the distinction.

No need to be picky. My point was that providing those documents, rights and support costs very little. My parents worked for the Brit Foreign Office abroad for years and providing consular support to tourists who'd lost their passports or money was a very minor sideline. Following directly from that, offering the service doesn't cost much more for six million people in Ireland than it does for four. Why doesn't the Dublin government give the passport-holders a vote too for a small fee: then we could have an interesting battle for the last seat in Diaspora North-east...

I suppose, if you were to look at it that way, it could be argued that the provision of the documents, rights and support would cost as little or as much - whatever your perspective on prudent and efficient state expenditure - in relative terms between four million persons and a potential six million persons as it would be to provide an extra two million or so people with some symbolic "representation" in parliament. The need for such is rendered rather pointless, however, by the fact that such "representation" would be completely meaningless and ineffective due to a border limiting the jurisdictional remit of the parliament. Anyhow, the Irish government remains fully committed to cross-border initiatives and bodies to which it is party, as well as the funding of such. At least it can be said that offering citizenship extra-territorially does offer some benefit of substance, no matter how significant or insignificant, once again depending on your perspective. I'm not sure what the substantial point, beyond the cross-border framework that is already in place, would be in offering northern-born Irish citizens a vote. If you can think of one, though, I'm sure I wouldn't object.

Disagree with the latter point. Although I recognise the need at the time to placate disgruntled unionists as well as nationalists, Northern Ireland could have survived perfectly well with a smaller population and geographical area. Luxembourg manages well; Cyprus managed yet another partition despite being much smaller than NI, let alone Ireland as a whole. Not least because NI retained the security of still forming part of the much bigger Britain.

Quite possibly; even probably. Admittedly, as you've shown, the claim that it might have struggled to sustain itself, especially with the security of the union behind it, was the weaker of my two points. Although, I still think it is fair to say that holding onto as big an area as was logistically and demographically possible, whilst still manufacturing what many would view as the impression of consent/a democratic unionist majority in the new statelet, was in the interests of unionists who sought to partition the island. We've kind of had this debate before and - not wishing to hastily assume anything - I think we're both in broad agreement anyway with differences being a matter of semantics. I never really got the time to respond back then, by the way, so apologies on that front. I was spending more than enough time on here as it was, ha, but I appreciated your endeavours in case you thought I was just being ignorant. Probably saved you a bit of bother anyway.

[DannyInvincible]

Answering my own question -ruling not expected for several weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...sh/8836124.stm

Well, bugger that. I'd been hoping all this would be wrapped up today and we'd be saved from seeing this thread reach page 70.

I suppose there have been no official announcements from either the IFA or the FAI on how they felt proceedings went or is there some sort of confidentiality clause in play?

[EalingGreen]

Funny how EG is obsessed with ensuring that everyone uses the official FIFA-endorsed name for the football team (Republic of Ireland), yet when he refers to the independent country that it represents, he refuses to use the official, internationally recognised name for that country (Ireland). For example, see his repeated references to the supposed irredentist citizenship policy of "the Republic of Ireland".

As I say, you may call your country whatever you like, according to your political preferences/prejudices, just as I shall continue to call it what I like, according to mine.
But this is a Football Forum, and when it comes to the naming of the two Irish International Football teams, it is not a question of choice (preferred or prejudiced), it is a question of fact. That is, the authoritative body, FIFA, has mandated that the two teams shall be called "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". Fortunately, this also allows for convenient abbreviation, ROI and NI (not that this stops prats labouriously typing out "the North", or "Six Counties" etc, in order to avoid recognising even the very existence of NI, state or football team).

The reality is, it's perfectly natural for people to use the same name for their country and the team that represents it. Sadly, FIFA took the unprecedented decision to prevent the FAI from calling its international football team by the same name as the internationally-accepted name for the country that it represents.

I don't know whether it was without precedent (and neither do you, I suspect), but it was certainly not without subsequent parallels - eg Taiwan/China or the two Koreas.

Of course, FIFA took that decision because the UK associations abused their (undemocratic) position of power within FIFA to ensure they did so.

Mope Alert! In 1953, the four British Associations only constituted a small minority of FIFA Members - FIFA could quite easily have ignored/outvoted them, had it wished.

If there had been a Court of Arbitration for Sport in 1953, when FIFA made that ruling, I'm pretty sure it would have been overturned.

Only "pretty sure"? Come, come, surely you can do better than that when it comes to getting inside the mind of an organisation which didn't even exist, at a time when you weren't even born*?

* - Apologies if you are over 57 years of age...

If you try to look at it objectively, the situation was as follows:
- Two distinct teams wanted to call themselves "Ireland"
- One of those teams represented an independent country called "Ireland"
- The other represented a region known as "Northern Ireland", which lies within a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I guess that's one definition of "objective".
Anyhow, here's mine:
1. For 73 years from 1880, there was a Football Association ("Irish Football Association") whose team called itself "Ireland", entirely legitimately;
2. Meanwhile in 1921, a grouping broke away from the IFA, styling itself the "FAIFS" and its team "Irish Free State";
3. Nearly 30 years later on, the FAIFS elected to rename itself the FAI and unilaterally call its team "Ireland", following political developments within its own juridiction;
4. By 1953 FIFA, when confronted by the contradictory and confusing situation of two teams calling themselves "Ireland" entering the same World Cup, determined that the IFA must alter its name to "Northern Ireland" (for competition purposes only*), with the FAI to adopt the name "Republic of Ireland";
5. Subsequently the IFA continues to abide by the ruling, whereas the FAI resists doing so.

* - That is, the IFA is still entitled to call itself "Ireland" for friendly matches, though it has declined to do so since around 1980 (its 100th Anniversary, btw)

It's pretty obvious that one team was perfectly entitled to call itself "Ireland" and the other was not.

Well, you took your time, but you got one thing right, at least...

Anyway, if EG wants to use only officially "correct" names all round, then that's up to him. But if he continues to use "ROI" for both the football team and the country, then he's just a hypocrite. Either way, nothing that FIFA or EG say is going to change the terminology I use - as I see it, I come from a country called Ireland, so I will continue to call my national football team "Ireland".

Knock yourself out, Republic Boy...

[EalingGreen]

Perhaps Beaglehole should consider how he came to persuade promising Manchester United youth player Oliver Norwood to leave the English youth set-up to join him. Over 25 English born youth players have been 'cherry picked' by Beaglehole to represent the North in the last few years. The large number of players has attracted the concern of the English FA and players like Joe Dudgeon have been contacted by the English FA about his future intentions.

Every single one* of those young players has a parent or grandparent from NI, inc Norwood. Therefore, SB/IFA are perfectly entitled to approach them to persuade them to play for NI. Similarly, the English FA is perfectly entitled to approach any young NI-born player who has an English parent/grandparent, to ask them to play for England.
The problem with eg Gibson or Kearns, is that they do not have a parent/grandparent from the Republic (unlike, say, Duffy or Wilson).

* - Including, incidentally, Steve Beaglehole's own son, Shamus [sic]

Its quite clear that it is palyers who are contacting the FAI with the intention of representing Ireland as was the case with Wilson, Duffy and almost all of the current crop of players from Derry like the McEleney brothers.

I don't know the percentage of youngsters who make the first approach, but it is most definitely NOT 100%. For example, both Kieran McKenna and Chris Baird have disclosed that they were approached first by the FAI. This is in direct contradiction of the assurance given to Jim Boyce by the FAI some time around 1995 (can't find link just now).

[EalingGreen]

I like to think of it like Virginia and West Virginia. The original state got to keep its name and the breakaway territory adopted a qualifier.

Let me see now...

First there was the IFA, then the FAI broke away. With the former having the right to the name "Ireland" ab initio, by your analogy, surely it must be for the latter to adopt the qualifier?

[EalingGreen]

That would be the same goal-line technology that the IFA voted against when given a chance to decide it's fate, thus consigning it to oblivion for the forseeable future aye?

Actually, both the IFA and the FAW voted against goal-line technology, I suspect because with Blatter having been publicly against it, both realised that Associations would have to stump up the money themselves to pay for it (not such a problem for the notably wealthier FA and SFA).

And in any case, it was not the IFA's vote which consigned it to oblivion etc. Even had they and the FAW voted in favour, it still would not have passed, since the four FIFA delegates to the Board all voted against the new technology and when the Board is tied 4-4, the FIFA Chairman has the casting vote.

[Charlie Darwin]

Let me see now...

First there was the IFA, then the FAI broke away. With the former having the right to the name "Ireland" ab initio, by your analogy, surely it must be for the latter to adopt the qualifier?

I was talking about the countries. Like everybody in the world, I refer to football teams according to what country or nation they represent.

[ArdeeBhoy]

I've always been from Northern Ireland and thus Irish.

So now you're a nationalist?? You need to change your terminology! Lol.

Although I recognise the need at the time to placate disgruntled unionists as well as nationalists, Northern Ireland could have survived perfectly well with a smaller population and geographical area.
Luxembourg manages well; Cyprus managed yet another partition despite being much smaller than NI, let alone Ireland as a whole. Not least because NI retained the security of still forming part of the much bigger Britain.

Except that they and various other colonial outposts were and are still massively subsidised by the British Exchequer and economy largely based in London.

Echoing Wolfie's point, in most of the rest of the World it's just Ireland.
But recently, on another board, Wolfie's point was made by a Belgian guy. He lives in Nivelles, a suburban town near Brussels. An area in which many cities and villages- and even some streets in central Brussels- have two or three names.

Without wanting to lapse too far into whataboutery, earlier in the thread I found myself typing 'Home Internationals', before correcting. Clearly that would be seen as a wind-up, ditto the 'British Lions' in rugby union. And at least one prominent poster on this thread gets annoyed at references to 'the South', even though he must realise it's widely used in Northern Ireland.

Most of this is just pointless waffle.
As for terminology, the unionists I've encountered tend to say the 'Republic', or maybe 'Southern' Ireland, which is as about as polite as it gets.

The same, although I don't see the problem with Nige contradicting what some other IFA hack said at the last FIFA international board meeting. I doubt they had an earlier meeting to mandate the delegate. He may simply have expressed a personal view, or followed Onkel Sepp's lead.

As Blatter seems now simply to have changed his mind under gentle pressure after the Tevez/ Neuer incidents, the foreseeable future looks unnecessarily pessimistic. You could see it trailed in the next U-20 or u-21 competition, say.

According to the relevant thread about this on OWB, it was done to spite the FAI given its relative relevance to them!
And would expect nothing less.
Though to be fair to the IFA, no-one could possibly suggested they impacted on the machinations of FIFA/Bl*tter who are a law onto theselves.

As I say, you may call your country whatever you like, according to your political preferences/prejudices, just as I shall continue to call it what I like, according to mine.

That is, the authoritative body, FIFA, has mandated that the two teams shall be called "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". Fortunately, this also allows for convenient abbreviation, ROI and NI (not that this stops prats labouriously typing out "the North", or "Six Counties" etc, in order to avoid recognising even the very existence of NI, state or football team).


Anyhow, here's mine:
1. For 73 years from 1880, there was a Football Association ("Irish Football Association") whose team called itself "Ireland", entirely legitimately;
2. Meanwhile in 1921, a grouping broke away from the IFA, styling itself the "FAIFS" and its team "Irish Free State";
3. Nearly 30 years later on, the FAIFS elected to rename itself the FAI and unilaterally call its team "Ireland", following political developments within its own juridiction;
4. By 1953 FIFA, when confronted by the contradictory and confusing situation of two teams calling themselves "Ireland" entering the same World Cup, determined that the IFA must alter its name to "Northern Ireland" (for competition purposes only*), with the FAI to adopt the name "Republic of Ireland";
5. Subsequently the IFA continues to abide by the ruling, whereas the FAI resists doing so.

Hmm. Tell us something we don't know(Have highlighted the bold print if only to point more than a little hypocrisy by a certain poster, not unlike your good self!)? The record must be well worn out by now!

Don't know about all the English/Scottish youngsters playing for the North, though you'll be glad to know GR suggested elsewhere some time ago, they should all go to play for 'Ingerland, simply by virtue of being born there and having better, er, prospects!
Though you should have no problem with Gibson playing for Ireland/the South/Republic, as he's an Irish citizen!
You should try it sometime.....

Lastly if the two FA's can split, there's nothing in current logic to defy they can't reunite at some point....

[co. down green]

I don't know the percentage of youngsters who make the first approach, but it is most definitely NOT 100%. For example, both Kieran McKenna and Chris Baird have disclosed that they were approached first by the FAI.

Do you have a link to a Chris Baird interview saying he was approached by the FAI?

I've never heard of Kieran McKenna, but a quick search shows that he was born in London, so i'd have had no problems with him being approached to play for Ireland, if he ever was.

How would any approach made to this lad McKenna be different to the approach made to England u17 international Oliver Norwood or Ireland u16 international John (Johnny) Gorman by the IFA?

[EalingGreen]

So now you're a nationalist?? You need to change your terminology! Lol.

By drawing such a conclusion from Gather Round's simple assertion that having been born in NI, he is thus "Irish", it is clear that you are incapable of comprehending that it is possible to be Irish, without automatically being automatically being subject to any prescribed political stance.
I, for instance, am 100% Irish, having been born and brought up on the island of Ireland, to two Irish parents who themselves were long of Irish stock.
The fact that my politics are Unionist, so that I want my own particular part of the island (NI) to continue to be part of the UK, does not change that simple fact.
Just as, for example, your average Dubliner is still 100% Irish, even since his country decided to join the Common Market/EU. That is, whilst he is Irish and European, I am also Irish and European (and British).

P.S. I know a Unionist from NI who is also a Republican! That is, he wants NI to remain within the UK, but with the hereditary Monarchy replaced by an elected President. (Her Madge's status doesn't bother me personally, but each to his own, I guess)

Don't know about all the English/Scottish youngsters playing for the North, though you'll be glad to know GR suggested elsewhere some time ago, they should all go to play for 'Ingerland, simply by virtue of being born there and having better, er, prospects!

Once again, there is no prescribed orthodoxy for NI football fans, either. GR and I agree on a number of issues, but disagree on others. "C'est la vie", as our cheese-eating/handballing French fellow Europeans might say...

Though you should have no problem with Gibson playing for Ireland/the South/Republic, as he's an Irish citizen!

Just as there are Brazilian-born footballers who are (entirely legitimately) Qatari citizens but who may not represent the Qatari FA unless they also have a Qatari parent/grandparent (or have lived in Qatar for a qualifying period), then I do not accept that Irish citizens like Gibson or Kearns should be permitted to represent the FAI, unless they may point to a parent/grandparent of their own from the Republic, like eg Duffy or Wilson, or have resided there.

Lastly if the two FA's can split, there's nothing in current logic to defy they can't reunite at some point....

There are dozens of precedents for a country splitting up to form two (or more) Football Associations, hence international teams.
However, there is NO precedent for two separate countries merging their two Associations to form one international football team, whilst remaioning politically independent of each other.
Moreover, "logic" suggest that any countries which tried it would not be permitted to do so by FIFA, since all the other Member Associations would be likely to protest that the merged entity was thereby gaining an unfair advantage.

Therefore, if you hope to see a single Irish international football team, then you'd better plan on living a very long time, for without an independent, united Irish state, it ain't gonna happen. And even then, there is absolutely no guarantee of that happening, as these guys can attest:
http://www.fifa.com//associations/as...mac/index.html
http://www.fifa.com//associations/as...hkg/index.html

P.S. If, of course, the good people of the Republic were to see the error of their ways* and rejoin the United Kingdom, then I have no doubt they might also rejoin the IFA ("Original and Best" (c) ), thereby getting another chance to 'live the dream'...

* - Perhaps following a visit by Her Gracious Majesty and subsequent readmission to the Commonwealth?