I said they can't necessarily be separated. Which is true. Culture can be, and often is, political.
Printable View
It's probably contrary to all the Rules of Forum Etiquette and convention etc to quote oneself, but I posted something a few days back which seems to have been ignored in the midst of all this Nationality/Citizenship debate.
Which I feel is a bit of a shame, really, since it was a sight more relevant to the thread than 95% of what has been posted since. Therefore, has anyone any view on the following:
"Namely, there are two Football Associations, and therefore two international football teams, in Ireland. Each is/should be equally valid and each should respect the other.
Consequently, playing for NI does not make someone either "more British" or "less Irish", it merely means that when someone pulls on the Emerald Green Shirt with the Celtic Cross Badge, he's a Northern Irish footballer - no more, no less. What he does away from the game is no business or interest of mine.
Therefore, I believe if you are born within one part of the island (NI), you should represent the IFA team and if you are born in the other part (Irish Republic), you should represent the other Association team, FAI/ROI (unless you have a suitable connection - parent/grandparent/residence - with another Association, when you may choose).
This is basically how it works for everyone of the other 208 Associations and minor, non-footballing quibbles over anthems, flags etc notwithstanding, I see no valid reason why it should not apply to the two Irish teams"
Anyone know why it is only now that the FAI is trying to take NI players when they have hitherto respected the previous "gentlemen's agreement" not to?
It's not only now and it generally began when it became unpleaseant in certain instances for nationalists to represent NI. I'm sure the Lennon situation for example encouraged youth players and the like to want to represent what they percieve as their country. Plus a number of them approached Brian Kerr when he was underage manager and given that he understood where they were coming from seeing as his father was from Belfast he decided to pick them. Plus at the time the Irish team's stock was considerably higher then NI's. The situation in the 90's was a lot different to when Pat Jennings et al were playing youth football.
Who knows.
I suppose it started with Brian Kerr. Maybe he didn't accept the balance of this "gentleman's agreement". After all it's of much more benefit to the IFA than to the FAI.
But you can ring him up and ask if you like. I don't speak for Brian Kerr or the FAI.
Talk of "Stating the Bleedin' Obvious"!
We all know that you and "a fair proportion of people born in the Six Counties [sic]" disagree with what I am saying.
But what I was trying to get at is why you think that my thesis doesn't stand up? I don't like a lot of things in life, but I have to accept that they are so, and the reasons why. Therefore, if you think my reasoning is faulty, tell me why, rather than just banging on about how much it annoys you.
P.S. I can do without your sneering about my quoting myself, since it was only an attempt to drag a thread about football, on a football forum, back to a discussion about matters footballing, it having been hijacked by posters like yourself who seem to prefer to harp on about politics. Why don't you post on a politics message board? From what little I've seen of them, they seem to have sneering down to a fine art, so you should feel at home.
Speaking for myself, any fan of a team is bound to be upset when he sees his team's potential pool of players dry up, for reasons which he perceives to be contrary to the principles behind international eligibility.
Where those players go is irrelevant: I would be just as opposed/angry/disappointed etc if we were losing NI-born players on unfair grounds e.g. to England (or anywhere else for that matter)
No, I think it's because they didn't have a leg to stand on (as eligibility was purely down to citizenship regardless of how it was aquired) until the change in regulations following the Qatar situation. Once that change came in they thought they had a case hence the challenge.
Remember this challenge was because the thought we were breaking the rules by picking 6 county players with 'born' citizenship' rather then looking for a change to the rules.
The gentlemans agreement was irrelevant and a distant memory at that stage.
Yes, you could be right, although it wouldn't be as a result of the Qatar situation, but as a result of the "Qatar criteria" being applied to situations concerning a player whose nationality entitled him to play for more than one team.
Hardly, given that the gentlemen's agreement was that NI players weren't eligible for ROI!
My God that first comment is pedantic. I didn't feel the need to spell it out, I would've thought that was obvious! :D
I'm saying the gentleman's agreement wasn't being adhered to for years at underage level before the current situation, since at least the early to mid 90's.
As as been repeated ad nauseum, Gibson himself is not the issue; rather it is a principle which is at stake here. Gibson's case merely brought the issue greater urgency, since he was the first in line (Alex Bruce excepted?) for a senior cap which would tie him to the ROI/exclude him from NI.
[Besides, Gibson may be better than some of the others who we consider may have been selected improperly by the FAI; that's not the same as saying he's better than the players who remain loyal to the IFA. In fact, on current form, Gibson would be 5th or 6th on the list of candidates vying for the two NI central midfield berths. At best. Indeed, I daresay he wouldn't have been much higher up the ROI pecking order, had you had a manager who knew his arse from a hole in the ground!]
True, but it wasn't such a problem, either, since the players involved were almost all U-21 and representing the ROI's under-age teams. Therefore, if they did look as though they might have been good enough* to represent us at senior level, we still had some hope of getting them back, as with Tony Kane and Martin O'Connor.
Gibson was different, because Staunton was looking to cap him for your seniour team, meaning he would be lost to us permanently.
Anyhow, what you must remember is that the IFA in the 80's and 90's was so incompetent and badly administered it made the FAI look like Microsoft! That is, there were so many other things going wrong that a few teenagers from Derry playing under-age tournaments in Cork or Cairo (or wherever) never even made their radar. Had the IFA had any radar. Or even electricity to power it. :eek:
I'm aware of that, it was a partly tongue in cheek remark. Hence the wink at the end.
Besides, it is abundantly clear that Staunton was capping him merely to stick his fingers up at the IFA (something which I wasn't happy with) as Gibson was clearly completely the wrong player to bring on in that game from a tactical point of view.
The IFA, after identifying what they consider to be an inconsistency between FIFA's Rules on eligibility and the Principles* behind those Rules, have now tossed the problem to FIFA.
And FIFA, despite their having the (unchallenged) authority to make a quick and clear determination that the present Rules must stand in this case, have declined to do so, suggesting instead a "compromise", which appears designed to avoid having to make a determination.
And assuming the IFA rejects this "compromise" (which I'm sure they will), the problem will revert back to FIFA.
And in the meantime, theFAI will continue to instruct its managers not to select NI-born players who cannot also demonstrate a parent/grandparent/residential connection to the FAI, which is a problem, of sorts, for you.
(* - I.e. you play for the Association within whose jurisdiction you were born, unless you can establish a legitimate footballing connection with another Association)
True but it's also that fact that the IFA could do nothing about it as at that time there was no confusion as to FIFA's position (ie) if you held a passport for a country you were entitled to play for that country. The IFA might have been the best run organisation at that stage but they couldn't have done anything. Teh reason they tried now was because they thought since the Qatar criteria was introduced they may have a case.
There was at least one 6c player playing in thr Under 20 Woprld Cup we came 3rd in in 1997 ** who great things were expected of and there was no fuss made over him. He didn't make it beyond and wound up playing in the eircom league (with Galway?) mind you but he was well thought of at the time. Someone tell me his name please, it's on the tip of my tounge and it's doing my head in that I can't remember it!
** May actually be thinking of Ger Crossley here who was with the Under 18 Euro Champions rather then the U 20 WC team.
Hardly! Players may move back and forth between different clubs in different countries, but that doesn't mean they may change their international eligibility at the same time. :rolleyes:
Besides, if you want to use that criterion, it doesn't help you much with Gibson, since he was developed not by Derry City, but by Institute FC, via the NISFA and the (IFA's) NI U-16 team, before he ever elected to represent the FAI.
Which is another reason why the IFA is angered by this whole situation (even if it doesn't directly affect his eligibility or otherwise under the Rules)
That's not as was reported in papers etc on both sides of the border. Nor would it explain why Kane and O'Connor reverted to NI, or why Ruari Higgins was "de-selected" from the ROI U-23 squad.
I think you'll find the status quo ante only obtains for those players such as Gibson, who had represented the ROI before the (Qatar/Brazil) Annex was introduced.
Kane and O'Connor reverted before the last FIFA pronouncment and ditto for Higgins. It was certainly reported over here that the FAI were free to pick players from all 32 counties following that. That doesn't follow that it's correct but it was definitely reported.
Firstly, it's your criterion - Derry City play under the aegis of the FAI (jurisdiction and whatnot). Secondly, even I, though I hold no license in law, nor any other parasitical profession, though I've been called to the bar, can see that this and the other Irish 'footballing' (as you so pertinently put it) anomalies - like the specific case of Irish dual citizenship and nationality, say - are enough to have the FIFA big-wig-wigs trembling in their wigs and collars and shouting: let it stand. Or enough.
This thread and its useless, coninical repetaitions are mostly boring but on occasion enraging. Just out of curiousity, Ealing, what precisely are you insinuating when you [jocularly, no doubt] refer (not here, one would hope you'd be banned) to the Republic as 'beggars', or 'tarmaccers'? Despite your eloquences, you're a hypocrite - and (if you consider the [Catholic - I presume] Irish and Irish travellers another race) a repulsively bigotted, sectarian & racist hypocrite to boot.
The fact that Derry City play in the Eircom is utterly irrelevant to the question of player eligibility. You don't need a lawyer to confirm this, just anyone with greater understanding of such matters than a goldfish. Or eel.
Try Slugger O'Toole - they've always room for one more Mope.
The argument is, I think, that as England is a region of Britain, is is possible to be both 100% English and British, as the two are not mutually exclusive (as it is possible to be both 100% Corkonian and Irish).
But is it possible to be 100% of two entirely different countries, which Ireland and Britain are?
Personally, I don't give a crap, and what it has to do with eligibility criteria I don't know.
This thread should be locked until FIFA/UEFA make their decision.