Player eligibility row

[EalingGreen]

And all the other parts of England & Scotland;Just cut out the middle-man and have a GB team.....

Never mind more complex reasoning, you appear to struggle with even the simplest concept.

So I will type this once again, only very slowly: I do not want to see a United Kingdom team, just as I do not want to see a United Ireland team. Instead, I prefer to see a Northern Ireland team, comprising of players who have either been born in NI or have at least one parent/grandparent born within NI. Plus Maik Taylor. That is why I call myself a Northern Ireland fan.

Clear?

[janeymac]

I understand the point you are making, which essentially repeats that of FIFA.
However, I do not see why in principle FIFA should distinguish between someone who happens automatically to have another Nationality, from someone who seeks to assert/apply for another Nationality to which he is legitimately entitled.

If you can't accept that, how do you accept that 16 of the 208 FIFA member assocations are an exception to the rule that you must be a political entity to be a member association?

[EalingGreen]

If you can't accept that, how do you accept that 16 of the 208 FIFA member assocations are an exception to the rule that you must be a political entity to be a member association?

Because there is no "rule" that you have to be a political entity to be a member association of FIFA. Duh!

For instance, Macao is no longer a "political entity", yet the Macao FA is still a Member Association of FIFA.

Whereas Palestine is not (yet, at least) a political entity, yet there is a Palestinian FA.

And Monaco is a political entity, with a Membership of FIFA, but no international football team.

Therefore, FIFA and FIFA alone determines what constitutes "Footballing Nationality" (my shorthand), as demonstrated by Associate Membership.

And one of the benefits of Membership is that each Member Association is entitled to be treated equally with all the others, regardless of how big or small etc they may be.

Except that when it comes to Ireland (island), FIFA is not treating its two Irish Member Associations equally over the question of Eligibility (imo).

[janeymac]

Because there is no "rule" that you have to be a political entity to be a member association of FIFA. Duh!

For instance, Macao is no longer a "political entity", yet the Macao FA is still a Member Association of FIFA.

Whereas Palestine is not (yet, at least) a political entity, yet there is a Palestinian FA.

And Monaco is a political entity, with a Membership of FIFA, but no international football team.

Therefore, FIFA and FIFA alone determines what constitutes "Footballing Nationality" (my shorthand), as demonstrated by Associate Membership.

And one of the benefits of Membership is that each Member Association is entitled to be treated equally with all the others, regardless of how big or small etc they may be.

Except that when it comes to Ireland (island), FIFA is not treating its two Irish Member Associations equally over the question of Eligibility (imo).

You are wrong about Monaco (even though it is a Principality). They are seeking membership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco_..._football_team

And Macao (& Hong Kong) were political entities and why they have held onto their membership. If they were seeking membership now, they wouldn't get it.

[co. down green]

Except that when it comes to Ireland (island), FIFA is not treating its two Irish Member Associations equally over the question of Eligibility

But didn't the IFA turn down the generous offer from the FAI and supported by FIFA, to allow the IFA to pick players from across the island?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Haven't you noticed my posts on the thread pointing out where I disagree with other unionists?
I want part of Ireland to remain part of Britain.
This makes no sense. Pretty much 100% of unionists in Northern Ireland use the name Northern Ireland. It's part of Ireland, they're Irish.

So you're right and the majority are all wrong now....

Why? Do you think that Britain (as with select others) should have held on to the rest of its illegal empire just because of a whim of some of the settlers who colonized it, wanted to govern a particular native population, based on their own dubious (& extremely paranoid) values??

Except as Janeymac says below (& far more importantly the local media most recently), the vast majority of unionists in the North, the whole reason the region even exists, see themselves as British!
Absolutely nothing to do with where they reside.

When it comes to how I identify myself politically, that post sums up my own feelings beautifully (though no doubt Ardee Bhoy's fingers are already straining at the keyboard to educate me as to what I do/should/must feel etc)

Well hardly, as various others have far more eloquently put, your 'arguments', especially around eligibility are riddled with flaws and contradictions, so it's doubtful anyone half-wise would take you remotely seriously!
More a source of enquiring bemusment.

However, whatever one feels on the vexed political questions of "nationality" and "identity" etc, I genuinely feel it is (or should be, at any rate) entirely irrelevant to the debate over footballing eligibility.

The GFA specifically includes: "Recognition of the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose"

This being the umpteenth example. Of something it has, does and will, regardless of your simplistic world view, even in a footballing context (see below).

Congratulations on finally acknowledging the GFA though.

So its ok for you to decide what nationality you are ok- but not alright for other unionists. Anyway - it would seem you are a minority in what you think. According to wiki (2006):

A 2006 report from the Institute of Governance stated that "Three-quarters of Northern Ireland’s Protestants regard themselves as British, but only 12 per cent of Northern Ireland’s Catholics do so. Conversely, a majority of Catholics (65%) regard themselves as Irish, whilst very few Protestants (5%) do likewise" and that "In Northern Ireland, very few respondents identify themselves as both British and Irish.-

75% of Protestants feel to be British; 12% of Catholics;
65% Catholics feel to be Irish; 5% of Protestants.

Institute of Governance, 2006. "National identities in the UK: do they matter?" Briefing No. 16, January 2006. Retrieved from http://www.institute-of-governance.o...riefing_16.pdf on August 24, 2006.

From that GR, don't think there are too many unionists have the same opinion that you do.

Ah sure this and last week's poll are far less representative than a few fools on a MB!

As for other people in NI, I have long agreed (and stated) that people may support whichever team they like, for whatever reason or none. However, whilst supporting a team must be a matter of choice, playing for a team most emphatically is not - otherwise there would be no eligibility criteria.

So you know better than the GFA now??

However, I simply do not see why someone from eg Derry should be permitted an alternative "choice" on account of their politics, whereas someone from eg Bilbao, Tallinn, East Jerusalem or Pristina etc is not.

Estonia have a team, so do Palestine and Kosovo whilst rejected by FIFA this week, unless they join with Albania, will have to be acknowledged eventually.
What's your point otherwise?

You see, if I followed your principle in allowing my politics to inform my footballing allegiance, then my equivalent would be to try to take pride in watching lads from Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and Belfast representing me on the world stage and as I've said before on this site, a United Kingdom team holds no greater attraction to me than a United Ireland team.

That's as maybe, but sounds a bit like some of your 'underage' teams;Who're the 'beggars' now??
I know who the Hypocrites are!

And we're the "bigots" in all this...

You are, if you insist Irish people can't play for Ireland......
See GFA for guidance?

As for the post about who you support, so what? We know that. It's about what it represents.

Every fan of the North's team can say they're Irish until they're green (or would they prefer 'red-white-and-blue'?) in the face, but even if it was always 11 men from the Ardoyne or Crossmaglen, the people they represent overall see themselves as British as confirmed by numerous other measures, no matter how some of the North's fans protest otherwise.

Hence regardless of what the CAS say, the urge for nationalists or liberal-minded people in the North to represent Ireland will get stronger??
Who could blame them?

[Predator]

Of course "nationality" has to be at the heart of eligibility. However, you persistently ignore my contention that footballing "nationality" is not the same as political "nationality". Otherwise, why would FIFA recognise 208 "nations" (footballing), whereas the UN only recognises 192 "nations" (political)?

Therefore if FIFA is going to abrogate to itself the right to define what is a footballing nation (which it does), then all I ask is that it treat all 208 of them exactly the same (which it doesn't).

The 208 member associations are all equally subject to the same rules; in the case of the rules regarding national team eligibility, the rules are applied equally, according to the criteria - the defining criterion being nationality, which, of course, varies from country to country.

American Samoa and US Virgin Islands, for example, are member associations and not countries*. In order to play for them, one needs to be of American nationality and also satisfy article 16, since this nationality allows one to represent more than one association. There is no American Samoan or US Virgin Islands nationality of course - the same could be said of the four British associations, but it is clear that FIFA has established eligibility for associations subject to nationality (article 15) and articles 16 and 17. I suppose you could then call this subsequent eligibility, 'football nationality'.

*The statutes concerning association admission read:
1. Any Association which is responsible for organising and supervising football
in its country may become a Member of FIFA. In this context, the expression
“country” shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international
community. Subject to par. 5 [the allowance of four British teams] and par. 6**below, only one Association shall be
recognised in each country.

**Par. 6 indicates that,
An Association in a region which has not yet gained independence may,
with the authorisation of the Association in the country on which it is
dependent, also apply for admission to FIFA.

(Ah, the joys of 'copy' and 'paste'. See my OWC post)

Otherwise you end up with the situation whereby Governments' (political) definition of "Nationality" override FIFA's; which might be fine except that FIFA resists such a notion when eg Qatar or Cape Verde tries it (i.e. for Brazilian-born footballers), but permit it when the Irish Republic's Government tries it (i.e. for NI-born footballers).

Seriously? Governments' definition of nationality along with certain criteria is exactly what FIFA use to decide eligibility. However, comparing the situation to the Qatari example is silly. You make it seem like the Irish Government acted in a shady, cynical manner, in conjunction with the FAI in order to benefit the country's football teams.

I contend that FIFA should assert its own definition of "Nationality", which is a solely footballing construct (eg permits Wales, Hong Kong, Macao, Faroes, Palestine etc, even though there are no such politically recognised "Nations") and which includes NI equally alongside ROI.
And that being so, NI/IFA should be entitled to exactly the same territorial integrity as that of the ROI/FAI (and every other Member Association of FIFA).

Sure we'll see if that contention takes off.

Otherwise by your reasoning, those footballers born within the territory of the CFB who have subsequently acquired Qatari Nationality, entirely legally and legitimately, should be entitled to represent the Association governing football in Qatar, that being the QFA.

These players should be entitled to represent the QFA, so long as they satisfy the eligibility criteria (article 17 in this case).

(Btw, the FAI is not the "Association governing football in Ireland [sic]", it is the Association governing football in the Irish Republic)

I detect circular movements and pedantry on the horizon.

I'm stating that the starting point for international eligibility should be that of Territory, more specifically the territory of a Member Association of FIFA. Thereafter, the player in question should also have the appropriate (political) Nationality.
And where someone possesses a (political) Nationality outwith that of the Association's territory within which he was born, then he should also be required to demonstrate a suitable "connection" (ancestry or residence) with whichever other Nationality (political and footballing) he wishes to represent. Which is how it works for 207 of the 208 "Territories" within FIFA.

Interesting suggestion. You want FIFA to define its own brand of nationality which is purely a football construct, yet you still want political nationality to play a part. So, if a player is born in the territory of the IFA, what should the appropriate political nationality be?

Of course, if you want to join in with AB, DP and KK etc in ascribing to such a prejudiced and intolerant view, then go ahead.

Obviously I don't question the 'Irishness' of the players in question, but I do feel that in representing the IFA (one of 'the four British associations', as stipulated by FIFA) one is exercising British nationality. Hardly a prejudiced and intolerant view.

Rather, I was expressing my admiration for DJ (amongst other things for those two exemplary qualities of his), whilst disparaging Duffy and Gibson, for the way they are effectively allowing their political outlook to inform their footballing position, including disprespecting their erstwhile teammates in the various NI teams they chose to represent, then reject.

Admire Johnson all you want. He's not a bad player. However, to actively partake in the defamation of two players (and many more) who have made a choice based on personal preference (which may not necessarily be politically charged), is quite simply, petty and definitely reeks of bitterness EG. I suppose that's your prerogative, but all I would say is "take yer oil", it's their choice and theirs alone.

P.S. If you are truly concerned for my ability to "get over it", don't worry, I accept that both those players have made their choice. But i'll be fcuked if I have to respect them for what they did, the reasons why they did it, and the way in which it was done.

Even if you don't like their choice, you have to respect their choice. How can you say you accept it, but then proceed to whinge about it?

[ArdeeBhoy]

In fact, my point was directed to the likes of Ardee Bhoy, Den Perry, Kingdom Kerry etc, who in castigating the NI team and its fans as all being "anti-Irish, Union Jack-waving bigots" etc, are clearly implying that anyone who plays for NI cannot be truly and authentically "Irish" etc, which must be deeply insulting to players I cited, such as Taggart, Armstrong, O'Neill and Johnson etc.
Of course, if you want to join in with AB, DP and KK etc in subcribing to such a prejudiced and intolerant view, then go ahead.

Well of course certain parties on here are now discovering their 'Irishness', despite the unionist community which the North's team represents, feeling in the main British.
So excuse me if I criticise the latter and all the attendant and paranoid control freakery about everything else different from them, within their pathetic jurisdiction.

Despite all their fans now being, apparently, 'Irish'.
Though on the next 12th, you'd better include the S.Beal-feirste N of ISC on the next bonfire, complete with its St.George's Cross bunting and picture of an old 'German' lady!

"Never mind more complex reasoning", indeed.


And I would quite happily ask all the players mentioned if they were happy representing some of the people they were obliged to represent?
And if they would do the same now, or do as Messrs. Best, Dougan & Jennings did in calling for a UI team? I doubt they would just bite their tongue now.

[ifk101]

And we're the "bigots" in all this...

Quite clearly you are because you are intolerant of those who differ to your understanding/ opinion/ viewpoint/ identity. For example, you suggest a "solution"?

Of course, there is actually a much simpler solution staring us in the face, if only people would acknowledge it.

..... which of course is followed by a snide remark aimed at those who dare to disagree.

Of course, such a suggestion will no doubt raise the ire of small-minded individuals who cannot see beyond their own petty political prejudices

You then preceed to belittle the identity of your neighbour, and not for the first time.

I should probably pity those ROI fans from "the North" who will never feel the pride I and my fellow NI fans feel when 11 players from the same wee bit of the world as theirs, put aside whatever political allegiances they may have and march out to take on all-comers from the rest of the world, win, lose or draw.

... and again

Indeed, if we must reduce the debate down to crude simplifications (like eg Shane "I'm a Catholic, so obviously I want to play for Ireland" Duffy), I am immensely proud that my team is made up equally of RC/Nationalist and Prod/Unionist Irishmen, whereas yours derives solely from one subset.

.... we're not all Catholics just so you know. And we don't all share the same political stance. That we hold in common is identification with the Irish nation. Anyways back to more intolerance aimed at those exercising their right to chose a different path to yours ....

..... whilst disparaging Duffy and Gibson, for the way they are effectively allowing their political outlook to inform their footballing position, including disprespecting their erstwhile teammates in the various NI teams they chose to represent, then reject.

... and yet more intolerance (termed respect here) towards those exercising their right to choose.

But I'll be fcuked if I have to respect them for what they did, the reasons why they did it, and the way in which it was done.

And before you vomit out more of your vile, why don't you do us all a favour and read the eligibility statutes instead of using your spin on them to belittle the identity of others.

[Gather round]

So its ok for you to decide what nationality you are- but not alright for other unionists

Er, no. I haven't denied anything to anyone.

Conversely, a majority of Catholics (65%) regard themselves as Irish, whilst very few Protestants (5%) do likewise" and that "In Northern Ireland, very few respondents identify themselves as both British and Irish"

Janey, according to those figures, 20% of Protestants and 23% of Catholics identify themselves primarily as neither British nor Irish. What are they? Hungarian? Some mix of both British and Irish? Invaders from the planet Tharg? You decide.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, pretty much 100% of unionists in Northern Ireland accept and use the name Northern Ireland. By obvious association, both it and they are Irish. Whatever the clearly loaded questions in your opinion survey. Which- again as I've mentioned repeatedly- is typical in only offering a very limited choice of answers.

I'm quite happy defending a minority of one generally, by the way.

In an earlier post you had a little dig at Garech de Brun really being Gary Browne...I suppose it would shock you to know that the current Lord Rosse (whose half brother married the Queen's sister) is actually called Brendan (Brendan was an Irish saint!)

My apologies, no offence attended to you him nor anyone else. I just think gaelicising your name looks a bit funny, that's all. It doesn't shock (or interest) me in the least what some bloke in the House of Lords is called. My only interest in it is when it'll be abolished.

Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit about how British people / those with British heritage have fitted into the 'Irish' nation without proclaiming how restrictive our notion of 'irishness' is

Perhaps you should read what others post before wading in with irrelevant anecdotes about your mates from the aritstocracy. I described as restrictive only any notion of Irishness that er, denies me 100% Irishness.

So basically you're Irish, but see most of Ireland as foreign?

It's quite logical for a unionist from Northern Ireland to see the Republic of Ireland as foreign, surely? They're two separate countries, both equally Irish.

Do you think that Britain (as with select others) should have held on to the rest of its illegal empire just because of a whim of some of the settlers who colonized it, wanted to govern a particular native population, based on their own dubious (& extremely paranoid) values??

I think Northern Ireland should remain part of Britain because that's what the majority British people there want, as demonstrated in every election for 90 years. Whether or not some event 400 years ago was legal, whimsical or paranoid is of lesser historical interest, I reckon.

[Mr_Parker]

Not long to wait now.

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-4319-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/

[ArdeeBhoy]

I haven't denied anything to anyone.

You have. That unionists consistently see themselves as as, er, British. To repeat, the clue is in the phrase 'unionist'.

Janey, according to those figures, 20% of Protestants and 23% of Catholics identify themselves primarily as neither British nor Irish. What are they?
As I've mentioned repeatedly, pretty much 100% of unionists in Northern Ireland accept and use the name Northern Ireland. By obvious association, both it and they are Irish. Whatever the clearly loaded questions in your opinion survey. Which- again as I've mentioned repeatedly- is typical in only offering a very limited choice of answers.

Confused? It still doesn't explain the other 80% or so.
But only a miniscule percentage of unionists would reject the collective identity/views of their peers.
As for the questions being 'loaded', paranoia besides, clearly 80% of respondents had no problems answering, which you'd know if you knew the slightest thing about the matter in hand.
You need to lay off the pomposity and perhaps get out more. You could even ask your fellow unionists how 'Irish' they are today.....

It's quite logical for a unionist from Northern Ireland to see the Republic of Ireland as foreign, surely? They're two separate countries, both equally Irish.
I think Northern Ireland should remain part of Britain because that's what the majority British people there want, as demonstrated in every election for 90 years. Whether or not some event 400 years ago was legal, whimsical or paranoid is of lesser historical interest, I reckon.

Except,as quoted repeatedly, the majority of unionists don't see them as 'equally Irish'. The clue's in their name.
And presumably you agree with all illegal colonization done by other cultures, even if the majority in there has been artificially transplanted there against the wishes of the indigenous population??

[dantheman]

Originally Posted by dantheman
So basically your Irish, but see most of Ireland as foreign?

I am one of 6 million Irish people, five million of whom have/ascribe to a different political opinion to mine.
Consequently, their Passport is also different from mine, so in that narrow sense, I suppose we are "foreign" to each other.
So Congratulations! Award yourself a Gold Star for having "caught me out", then go to bed, otherwise your mother will be scolding you for staying up late...

Pomp and predictable hot air aside, basically:

Someone born in Newry is 100% Irish
Someone born in Dundalk is 100% Irish

Under the GFA, the person in Newry has a right to an Irish nationality, as bestowed by the Irish government. The exact same nationality as the Dundalk lad/lassie. Not an N Irish identity, an Irish one.

Yet you state that the two people are 100% foreign from each other?

You'll have to forgive me. I have a Masters degree in Engineering and I can't work that one out!!!

[Gather round]

You have [denied]. That unionists consistently see themselves as as, er, British

You what? I've never denied that any unionist isn't British. Stop posting nonsense.

As for the questions being 'loaded', paranoia besides, clearly 80% of respondents had no problems answering

I'd have had no problem answering. Doesn't mean the survey covers all possible responses, allows for overlap and so on, does it?

which you'd know if you knew the slightest thing about the matter in hand. You need to lay off the pomposity

Who says I don't? I know quite well how these things work, having answered hundreds of them and occasionally devised a few. You need to lay off it and all, your rank-pulling is as pompous as anyone on this board.

the majority of unionists don't see them as 'equally Irish'. The clue's in their name

One's called the Republic of Ireland, the other's called Northern Ireland. Both names are equally Irish. It's obvious.

And presumably you agree with all illegal colonization done by other cultures, even if the majority in there has been artificially transplanted there against the wishes of the indigenous population??

You presume wrongly (no surprise there). I haven't said I agreed with any colonisation, illegal or otherwise. Merely that judging people now based on what their ancestors did 400 years ago is a bit pointless.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Ha ha. More pompous claptrap.

You keep saying unionists in general are Irish.The trouble is they don't!

Ironically when asked, even unionists of your acquaintance confirmed their British status, pretty convincingly.
Clearly you have no real knowledge of their outlook and of course the inevitable pomposity angle speaks for itself.

This extends to your very limited perception of the situation;The two names you refer to are Ireland the country and part of Britain.
While you are surprised that people are protesting against colonization, just like the Palestinians will be doing in the next millennium, and describe it as 'pointless'.

Yeah right, get real.




Do you even read your previous posts on this thread? Or the evidence to counter what you say?
As virtually all of them have been contradicted in that last laboured response.