Player eligibility row

Aaron Rogan must be a feckin wizard -they've picked him twice.

Come to think of it ...maybe he's not only Catholic -maybe he's one of them Padre Pio types who can bi-substansiate. Think of the possibilities ...that would be some striking partnership if we stuck him up front with himself ...and the money would just roll in from the Karaoke competitions he'd walk doing Everly Brothers songs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleyn67

Danny Kearns is being released from West Ham along with Terry Dixon over the coming weeks.

---

Whoah! Tell us more insider!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

"(The IFA) have picked Daniel Kearns as the case they’re going to bring to CAS," Delaney said yesterday.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/kfkfgbqlgbid/rss2/

---

Have they decided to pick Kearns as a type of scapegoat, since he is the most recent one to change? There are quite a few kids in our underage squads at the minute who don't satisfy the IFA and their interpretation of the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Aaron Rogan must be a feckin wizard -they've picked him twice.

Come to think of it ...maybe he's not only Catholic -maybe he's one of them Padre Pio types who can bi-substansiate. Think of the possibilities ...that would be some striking partnership if we stuck him up front with himself ...and the money would just roll in from the Karaoke competitions he'd walk doing Everly Brothers songs.

---

He's actually a very good player; he played out of position at right back for NI in the Victory Shield and received positive reviews - he even found himself being featured in Soccer AM's 'Showboat' compilation. On top of that, he's an Irish and European champion boxer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleyn67

Danny Kearns is being released from West Ham along with Terry Dixon over the coming weeks.

---

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/spo...to_leave_club/

No mention of Dixon but Kearns is apparently on his bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

There are quite a few kids in our underage squads at the minute who don't satisfy the IFA and their interpretation of the rules.

---

Just reading article 18 again, the way it is worded provides a crucial insight into how "nationality" should be read in article 16 where a player is "eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality", the article the IFA are asking the CAS to ensure FIFA uphold. Article 18 begins:

Quote:

---

If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality...

---

The IFA's case rests on the word "nationality" in article 16 referring to a fusion of all nationalities held by a particular player - for example, if his nationality was considered "Irish-British"/"British-Irish", this single nationality would entitle him to play for more than one team, Ireland and, say, Northern Ireland - but it is clear from the wording of article 18 that FIFA treat each nationality held by a player as distinct from any other nationalities he might hold. The article distinguishes between a player having more than one nationality (which is the case for those players born in the north who possess both Irish and British nationality) and players eligible to play for more than one team due to a single nationality (for example, British nationality would permit a player to play for any of the "Home nations" before the application of further conditions restricting players with British nationality to play for one). There is no such thing as a single "Irish-British" nationality; rather, there are separate Irish and British nationalities, and, importantly, this is how FIFA view the concept of nationality. That might sound a bit convoluted and I'm not sure how well I've articulated what I'm trying to say, but I think you can get the gist of it anyway. Essentially, it means the IFA's case is destined to fail.

now to shed more light on the subject what would be the all time combined team, and how good would a combined team do now? dont forget northern ireland had one of the best footballers in history who could of played for eireann if a player is able to play for the republic then he should be picked no questions asked. so yes we should pick who we can for the benefit of the national team

Who do you mean? Jennings??

Not too many realistic characters at this stage....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Who do you mean? Jennings??

Not too many realistic characters at this stage....

---

I presume he meant Best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irish_Praha

I presume he meant Best?

---

To be fair he could have meant a couple of people, but you're right it was probably Georgie Boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sean r

...one of the best footballers in history who could of played for...

---

I think we should have a dedicated thread in Other Stuff where others so inclined as myself can point and laugh at people who do this. :-D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

I think we should have a dedicated thread in Other Stuff where others so inclined as myself can point and laugh at people who do this. :-D

---

Awk now, sure he's only a kid...

Actually the Northern Ireland fans voted for Jennings as their best ever player a few years back with Best in 2nd place. Big Pat played 119 times of course incl 2 World Cups and winning 2 Home Championships. George only got 37 caps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Just reading article 18 again, the way it is worded provides a crucial insight into how "nationality" should be read in article 16 where a player is "eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality", the article the IFA are asking the CAS to ensure FIFA uphold. Article 18 begins:

The IFA's case rests on the word "nationality" in article 16 referring to a fusion of all nationalities held by a particular player - for example, if his nationality was considered "Irish-British"/"British-Irish", this single nationality would entitle him to play for more than one team, Ireland and, say, Northern Ireland - but it is clear from the wording of article 18 that FIFA treat each nationality held by a player as distinct from any other nationalities he might hold. The article distinguishes between a player having more than one nationality (which is the case for those players born in the north who possess both Irish and British nationality) and players eligible to play for more than one team due to a single nationality (for example, British nationality would permit a player to play for any of the "Home nations" before the application of further conditions restricting players with British nationality to play for one). There is no such thing as a single "Irish-British" nationality; rather, there are separate Irish and British nationalities, and, importantly, this is how FIFA view the concept of nationality. That might sound a bit convoluted and I'm not sure how well I've articulated what I'm trying to say, but I think you can get the gist of it anyway. Essentially, it means the IFA's case is destined to fail.

---

Danny out of the last thread, that was the jist of I think Geysirs? , reasoning that the nationality referered to is a single nationality (which entitles them to play for different teams) wheres the IFA thinks it means the plural eg dual nationality. But as was pointed out , dual nationalitys etc are covered elsewhere and Irish nationality alone does not entitle somebody to play for the north The IFA should be argueing for achange in the rules as opposed to the rules being enforced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

I think we should have a dedicated thread in Other Stuff where others so inclined as myself can point and laugh at people who do this. :-D

---

Not your most articulate post, Lionel.

The duplicate reference to derivatives of "Other" was disappointing. I'll resist the temptation to point and laugh.

I read in the Irish Star on Saturday that Shane Duffy's association change may not receive FIFA clearance until after the CAS case and as such he may not be able to play in May (although he will be able to participate in the training camp). I appreciate that there is no rush; Duffy is young and should have many more chances to play in the future, but it confused me somewhat, given that Duffy is not subject to the IFA's appeal. Even if he doesn't get clearance in time for the May friendlies, is there any guarantee that he'll be cleared in time for the U21 games in August? After all, this CAS case has the potential to drag on.

I wonder have FIFA or the FAI actually specified that they will not deal with any further association changes concerning Irish players because of the whole CAS thing? Surely not, since Daniel Kearns received clearance after a few months and was able to play for the U19s in their recent games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

I read in the Irish Star on Saturday that Shane Duffy's association change may not receive FIFA clearance until after the CAS case and as such he may not be able to play in May (although he will be able to participate in the training camp). I appreciate that there is no rush; Duffy is young and should have many more chances to play in the future, but it confused me somewhat, given that Duffy is not subject to the IFA's appeal. Even if he doesn't get clearance in time for the May friendlies, is there any guarantee that he'll be cleared in time for the U21 games in August? After all, this CAS case has the potential to drag on.

I wonder have FIFA or the FAI actually specified that they will not deal with any further association changes concerning Irish players because of the whole CAS thing? Surely not, since Daniel Kearns received clearance after a few months and was able to play for the U19s in their recent games.

---

I thought Duffy's case didnt apply here as he qualifies through parentage regardless of where he was born and his situation is different to the case being brought by the IFA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greendeiseboy

I thought Duffy's case didnt apply here as he qualifies through parentage regardless of where he was born and his situation is different to the case being brought by the IFA.

---

Exactly, which is what confuses me. Perhaps it is because the articles under review are concerned with players holding more than one nationality changing and by default all such players are subject to review and prohibited from changing while the case runs its course? However, Daniel Kearns' recent selection would suggest otherwise. The IFA have, in the media at least, acknowledged that Duffy is not subject to their appeal, but who knows how their case is being presented.

And maybe the Star are talking b*ll*cks.

Yeah, there is no case to be heard over Duffy's nationality. NI were angry about the manner of his defection but they're not challenging its legality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newryrep

Danny out of the last thread, that was the jist of I think Geysirs? , reasoning that the nationality referered to is a single nationality (which entitles them to play for different teams) wheres the IFA thinks it means the plural eg dual nationality. But as was pointed out , dual nationalitys etc are covered elsewhere and Irish nationality alone does not entitle somebody to play for the north The IFA should be argueing for achange in the rules as opposed to the rules being enforced

---

I fully understand that and completely agree. That's more or less what I was saying. The part you highlighted was just me proposing what exactly it would entail were the IFA's interpretation correct. Of course, such obviously isn't the case as nationality is a singular concept and FIFA expressly acknowledge and stipulate this in article 18, so we know such an interpretation to be incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lopez

And maybe the Star are talking b*ll*cks.

---

That sounds about right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

I wonder have FIFA or the FAI actually specified that they will not deal with any further association changes concerning Irish players because of the whole CAS thing? Surely not, since Daniel Kearns received clearance after a few months and was able to play for the U19s in their recent games.

---

Daniel Kearns would have been playing for us well before Christmas but for the hold up in his papers from FIFA, these things can take a bit of time and that’s likely the case with Duffy.

Derry player Thomas McBride had his first call-up to the u19 side (as well as Kearns) after the IFA went to CAS, and Shane & Patrick McEleney have continued to be selected, so there is certainly no agreement not to field players from the North.

If I recall from the last occasion, the FAI stopped fielding players for a short period on instruction from FIFA , prior to their legal teams decision, which again came to the conclusion that players born in the North continued to be eligible for Ireland. They were then free to be selected again as the issue had been clarified by FIFA. The IFA also refused a compromise deal from the FAI, which would have allowed the northern association to field players from the whole island, It was flatly turned down by the IFA grand wizard and his association.

FIFA seem to be fully supportive of the FAI in the case being brought by the North to CAS, and its hardly surprising as their own legal department have made the same ruling in favour of the FAI on three separate occasions over the last number of years.

I'm no expert about CAS but are they not obliged primarily to apply the various regulations of FIFA when reaching their decision? Its difficult to see a positive outcome for the IFA as it is pretty black & white under current statutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by co. down green

I'm no expert about CAS but are they not obliged primarily to apply the various regulations of FIFA when reaching their decision? Its difficult to see a positive outcome for the IFA as it is pretty black & white under current statutes.

---

Indeed, what puzzles me is how the IFA can think they have any chance with their case. As far as I'm aware, the IFA have gone to CAS in relation to articles 15 and 16 of the FIFA statutes. I would assume, then, that CAS can only arbitrate over the dispute with regard to the interpretation these articles. I don't imagine it can operate outside these statutes or apply new rules of its own to override them if the IFA has requested that these are the ones they look at.

Is this relevant from the CAS site?

Quote:

---

WHAT LAW DO THE ARBITRATORS APPLY ?

In the context of ordinary arbitration, the parties are free to agree on the law applicable to the merits of the dispute. Failing such agreement, Swiss law applies.

In the context of the appeals procedure, the arbitrators rule on the basis of the regulations of the body concerned by the appeal and, subsidiarily, the law of the country in which the body is domiciled. The procedure itself is governed by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

---

Just looking at that CAS site and there doesn't seem to be any date for a hearing yet. I wonder when the hearing will actually take place, given that the IFA have kicked up enough of a fuss already since the announcement of Duffy's decision.

Lopez called it right, the Star report is bollíx.

However Delaney got it wrong earlier
Delaney confident
"but I’m hopeful that CAS will support us,” he added. “They’ve already done that during the week by allowing Daniel to play for us. So it’s as you were until it’s heard in CAS.”

CAS have nothing to do with allowing Kearns to play. FIFA allow the player to play because the IFA's objection is not recognised by FIFA as having any merit.
Everything is the same as it ever was.

In fact, I don't think FIFA even have to go CAS and throw themselves at the mercy of CAS arbitration. The FIFA statute allows a dissatisfied member one month or so, to appeal a decision with CAS.
We all know that time period has elapsed.
FIFA can just tell the IFA to go and do what we would all like them to go and do.

Has it even been confirmed yet whether CAS will grant a hearing? Can one be granted if the time period has elapsed?

So far it is only the IFA who have confirmed that they intend to go to the CAS.
Delaney appears to indicate that he has been informed of something when he says he thinks the CAS hearing will happen in the next few months.

The IFA could, on their own bat, request an advisory opinion from the CAS which is not binding.
FIFA are not obliged to submit to arbitration.
According to CAS
"For a dispute to be submitted to arbitration by the CAS, the parties must agree to this in writing. Such agreement may be on a one-off basis or appear in a contract or the statutes or regulations of a sports organization. Parties may agree in advance to submit any future dispute to arbitration by the CAS, or they can agree to have recourse to the CAS after a dispute has arisen."

But should FIFA agree to arbitration, then the CAS judgement is binding.
AFAIAA the CAS follow Swiss law. For instance should one of the eligibility statutes be found to have an unclear wording then it has to be interpreted against FIFA.
Unclear wording would be any ambiguity or unclear provisions in the eligibility statutes.

The IFA have no real case with their objections to FIFA interpretation and application of article 15 and 16.
So what's the worst that can happen?
The worst is that FIFA are forced to change the wording of one of the eligibility statutes.
CAS just give a binding interpretation of the statutes as they are written.
The CAS have no power to force FIFA to adopt different rules of eligibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

Just looking at that CAS site and there doesn't seem to be any date for a hearing yet. I wonder when the hearing will actually take place, given that the IFA have kicked up enough of a fuss already since the announcement of Duffy's decision.

---

Perhaps the CAS don't see Paranoia as an 'argument'.....

There was a small piece by Paul Rowan, regarding this ongoing saga, in The Sunday Times.

I can't find a link, so I've just typed it.


IFA court bid to stop exodus to South

Football authorities in Belfast have vowed to continue their legal battle to stop players born in the North playing for the Republic of Ireland, despite receiving a serious setback at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, in Lausanne.

It's emerged that the IFA made legal representations to the court to stop Belfast-born player Daniel Kearns playing for the Republic of Ireland U19 team against Poland on April 8th, though no announcement was made at the time and their bid was rejected. Kearns played in the game and scored the winning goal in a 1-0 victory for the Republic.

"We can confirm that representations were made to the court regarding Daniel Kearns," the IFA said in a statment to The Sunday Times, before confirming that their efforts would continue. "We have submitted our appeal brief to CAS, and we will argue it there."

What is become increasingly clear is how much this case is revolving around Kearns, the 18 year-old West ham reserve team player, rather than more high-profile defectors such as Darron Gibson of Manchester United, Portmouth's Marc Wilson and Shane Duffy of Everton, who are now members of the senior Republic of Ireland squad. However, unlike Duffy for instance, it is belived none of Kearns' immediate relatives were born in the Republic.

FAI chief executive John Delaney has said he has been contacted by players born in the North who "have come to me and said they won't ever play for Northern Ireland. One player was always going to be the test case for going to CAS and Daniel Kearns is that."

IFA chief executive Patrick Nelson refused to comment and while the two associations are keen to stress that relations are good, it is clear that the issue is causing tension behind the scenes. The anxiety is most keenly felt in the North where there is anger that resources are wasted on players who go on to play for the Republic and concern that the situation may worsen if their legal steps fail.

CAS says an announcement of a hearing date will be made "in due course."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

[i]It's emerged that the IFA made legal representations to the court to stop Belfast-born player Daniel Kearns playing for the Republic of Ireland U19 team against Poland on April 8th, though no announcement was made at the time and their bid was rejected. Kearns played in the game and scored the winning goal in a 1-0 victory for the Republic.

"We can confirm that representations were made to the court regarding Daniel Kearns," the IFA said in a statment to The Sunday Times, before confirming that their efforts would continue. "We have submitted our appeal brief to CAS, and we will argue it there."

---

I'd love to know the details of their bid to stop Kearns from playing. I wonder why no one knew about it? What's more, can you imagine if they had succeeded? I doubt Kearns would have been too happy. Do you think he'd have represented NI again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

There was a small piece by Paul Rowan, regarding this ongoing saga, in The Sunday Times.

I can't find a link, so I've just typed it.


IFA court bid to stop exodus to South

Football authorities in Belfast have vowed to continue their legal battle to stop players born in the North playing for the Republic of Ireland, despite receiving a serious setback at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, in Lausanne.

It's emerged that the IFA made legal representations to the court to stop Belfast-born player Daniel Kearns playing for the Republic of Ireland U19 team against Poland on April 8th, though no announcement was made at the time and their bid was rejected. Kearns played in the game and scored the winning goal in a 1-0 victory for the Republic.

"We can confirm that representations were made to the court regarding Daniel Kearns," the IFA said in a statment to The Sunday Times, before confirming that their efforts would continue. "We have submitted our appeal brief to CAS, and we will argue it there."

What is become increasingly clear is how much this case is revolving around Kearns, the 18 year-old West ham reserve team player, rather than more high-profile defectors such as Darron Gibson of Manchester United, Portmouth's Marc Wilson and Shane Duffy of Everton, who are now members of the senior Republic of Ireland squad. However, unlike Duffy for instance, it is belived none of Kearns' immediate relatives were born in the Republic.

FAI chief executive John Delaney has said he has been contacted by players born in the North who "have come to me and said they won't ever play for Northern Ireland. One player was always going to be the test case for going to CAS and Daniel Kearns is that."

IFA chief executive Patrick Nelson refused to comment and while the two associations are keen to stress that relations are good, it is clear that the issue is causing tension behind the scenes. The anxiety is most keenly felt in the North where there is anger that resources are wasted on players who go on to play for the Republic and concern that the situation may worsen if their legal steps fail.

CAS says an announcement of a hearing date will be made "in due course."

---

Cheers for that.

Details are still a bit vague though. Are the IFA now at appeal stage then? The article mentions that an announcement of a hearing date will be made in "due course", but was/were the "bid"/"representations" that was/were rejected turned down as part of a first hearing or what? What exactly does a "bid"/"representations" mean?

Also, even if CAS were to decide that Kearns wasn't eligible to represent us, am I correct in thinking that he wouldn't be able to switch back to Northern Ireland, having already made one switch?

On a side-note, I wonder does Shane Duffy even know that he's a senior international squad-member now? :P

Thanks for typing that out Fly.
It does not appear that FIFA have agreed to arbitration, which is their prerogative.

Anyway, CAS can do f all, except look for an uncrossed t in the statutes.
All FIFA would have to do is cross the t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

I'd love to know the details of their bid to stop Kearns from playing. I wonder why no one knew about it? What's more, can you imagine if they had succeeded? I doubt Kearns would have been too happy. Do you think he'd have represented NI again?

---

Wouldn't bother me, it's the principal of it. He could never play another International game again for all I care.

It REALLY gets on my tits when players defect. Kearns has played for us at youth level, if he was never interested in playing for us proper the IFA should have dumped him out on his hole years ago so that he didn't waste our time and effort.

FFS, he lad has played AGAINST the Republic and scored for us AGAINST the republic. What a waste of space, effort and money he was.

I fully support the IFA fighting this. Yes, players have a right to play for the republic, but the republic is ripping the ass out of it, waiting until WE develop players and then sticking their arm in. If you want players, take them before they play for us. I have no problem with players shifting sides if they at least have the decency to do it before playing for NI at youth level.

I think you're overestimating the "space, effort and money." It would have cost the same amount of money whether he was in the squad or not and surely he paid back the time and effort (if not the money too) with goals and performances. I mean, when you break up with your girlfriend (this is not a prediction or a promise), do you demand your money and effort back, or do you dwell on the betrayal and what could have been? I can understand NI fans feeling let down or taken a bit for mugs, but they should just come out and admit it instead of dragging up all this "money invested" hokum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awec

It REALLY gets on my tits when players defect. Kearns has played for us at youth level, if he was never interested in playing for us proper the IFA should have dumped him out on his hole years ago so that he didn't waste our time and effort..

---

Have you penned a strongly worded letter to the IFA about their 'acquisition' of England youth internationals Oliver Norwood & Ryan Blake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by co. down green

Have you penned a strongly worded letter to the IFA about their 'acquisition' of England youth internationals Oliver Norwood & Ryan Blake?

---

I don't support that either. Players should play for the country they are born in. I know we have players playing now who are dodgy, but I'd rather we didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

I think you're overestimating the "space, effort and money." It would have cost the same amount of money whether he was in the squad or not and surely he paid back the time and effort (if not the money too) with goals and performances. I mean, when you break up with your girlfriend (this is not a prediction or a promise), do you demand your money and effort back, or do you dwell on the betrayal and what could have been? I can understand NI fans feeling let down or taken a bit for mugs, but they should just come out and admit it instead of dragging up all this "money invested" hokum.

---

We are being taken for mugs. Guys like Kearns think they can hitch onto our youth system and then sod off elsewhere. People like that need a good boot up the hole and need to waken up. We aren't interested in you if you aren't interested in us, so if you want to play for the ROI they should sod off to play for the ROI and never put on a NI shirt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awec

I don't support that either. Players should play for the country they are born in. I know we have players playing now who are dodgy, but I'd rather we didn't.

---

I suggest you contact the IFA forthwith and demand the removal of your 80+ capped goalkeeper Maik Taylor!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awec

It REALLY gets on my tits when players defect.

---

The IFA's situation isn't so "special" that it's the only association in the world to suffer from "defections". It happens all over the world. Oh, and just to keep you straight as regards footballing etiquette and nomenclature, what you sulkingly dub a "defection" is generally referred to as a "change of association" by FIFA and the rest of the global footballing community. Just so you don't feel left out of the big party... ;-)

Quote:

---

What a waste of space, effort and money he was.

---

Vague, unquantifiable balderdash, if not just downright suspect anyway.

Quote:

---

I fully support the IFA fighting this.

---

Out of interest, how do you rate the case's chances? I genuinely don't mean to sound sarcastic or overly incredulous, but are Northern Ireland fans actually optimistic?

Quote:

---

Yes, players have a right to play for the republic, but the republic is ripping the ass out of it, waiting until WE develop players and then sticking their arm in.

---

It's either a right or it isn't. You either take advantage of that right or you don't. There's no such thing as "ripping the ass out of it".

Even so, you're still overstating the FAI's use of this right. At what point do you deem a player "developed"? You're basing your argument on more unverifiable and wishy-washy claptrap. Gibson, for example, was playing under the auspices of the FAI from under-17 level. You couldn't claim you developed him into the player he is today by then, surely? As of yet, he's the only "defector" to turn out for our senior team. How many "defectors" have there been in total? Hardly "ripping the ass out" of anything. Even if you could somehow rip the ass out of a perfectly legitimate entitlement!

Quote:

---

If you want players, take them before they play for us. I have no problem with players shifting sides if they at least have the decency to do it before playing for NI at youth level.

---

Once again, the IFA aren't the only association to suffer from "defections". It's all part and parcel of the modern game worldwide as per FIFA's current statutes. Maybe the IFA should look into petitioning FIFA for a rule-change. Your argument suggests that these players will owe something to the IFA if they turn out for them and then happen to switch association elsewhere at a future date. Maybe you should be thankful these players offered their services at all. I'm not so sure what else you can say they owe the IFA beyond that? At what point would you consider the IFA's investment in a player as being "repaid" so as to free him from the shackles of servitude? :rolleyes:

In fact, don't the IFA actually benefit from "defections" from elsewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awec

We are being taken for mugs. Guys like Kearns think they can hitch onto our youth system and then sod off elsewhere. People like that need a good boot up the hole and need to waken up. We aren't interested in you if you aren't interested in us, so if you want to play for the ROI they should sod off to play for the ROI and never put on a NI shirt.

---

Wait... so you want the IFA to fight this, but you also want him to sod off and play for the FAI? Those are quite difficult standards to live up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awec

Players should play for the country they are born in.

---

And that's that? Says you and a couple of others who aren't taken at all seriously in world football. That statement is so at odds with FIFA's current statutes, it's difficult to entertain.

I'd assume all these lads want to play for their country, why else would they bother.