This would be more appropriate in that case...Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.d...o/o653846b.jpg
:cool:
Printable View
This would be more appropriate in that case...Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.d...o/o653846b.jpg
:cool:
It's this bit that I think relates to Italian descendantsQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
'Citizens of other countries descended from an ancestor (parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, etc.) born in Italy may have a claim to Italian citizenship by descent.'
Apart from 2nd generation (whose citizenship is automatic), the 3rd and 4th generation have the right to apply for citizenship. They have a blood right to apply for that citizenship but not the citizenship as a birthright.
AFAIA, article 15 applies to 1st and 2nd generation nationals.
Another pretty dumb response, this, to the idea suggested by mystery-man 'EdwardT' that the poster who referred to the piece as neither informed nor well-researched hadn't outlined a rationale for his belief:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Sure, I'm approaching the issue from the perspective of an Ireland fan who supports the right of Irish nationals to play for Ireland, but honest debate on the issue and some form of intellectual engagement with the piece is exactly what I'd love to see if people feel they have valid points to counter those I've made. If there are perceived faults in it, I'd be more than happy to acknowledge and debate them. I'm confident enough in the validity of my own standpoint that I wouldn't feel the need to censor any counter-argument. I didn't even delete that link to that blog about "Prodestan" because, although patent nonsense, I often feel that resorting to such measures as censorship is almost an admission of a suspect personal standpoint. From reading my own piece, there should be no indication that I'd agree with anything in that, so I had nothing to fear as far as my own conscience was concerned, although I did acknowledge the possibility of people lazily associating the two, as, unfortunately, some on OWC decided to do. As a response, I clarified my own position in the comments beneath the piece. And I don't think anyone's said it's the last word either, but, at worst, it's an honest attempt to compile as many elements of this debate of which I'm aware into one solitary piece of prose that is accessible and should make sense if one has the time to digest it, even if there is a hint of bias. But I'm trying to defend the right of Irish nationals to play for their country against insulting and aggressive legal and cultural attack, after all.Quote:
dont you know that you arent allowed to find any faults in this article promoted on many websites. it is the last word on the rulings and the lad seems to have many fans.
I've been accused of partisanship, but at least I acknowledged every mention of every entity concerned by their official titles. Bar maybe the city of Derry, but you don't realise how difficult even the former was for me! :p In seriousness though, I didn't even mention the infamous and oft-recycled Neil Lennon booing incident once, because I don't actually think it's remotely relevant to the modern-day situation, nor did I go into the whole thing about the bullets being sent to McCourt and McGinn, because, as far as I know, there's no evidence whatsoever that NI fans had anything to do with those sorry affairs. I think most were pretty forthright in their condemnation anyhow. I haven't even suggested that the likes of Baird, McGinn, McCourt and Clingan have to endure even a hint of sectarian abuse when the play for NI, because the reality is that they've been broadly welcomed by NI fans in Windsor Park. If I was blinded by partisanship, I'd have probably spent half the piece ranting about red herrings and non-issues like the above, but I didn't even once. The crux of the issue comes down to one of national identity - for me, the treatment of nationalists in Windsor Park is irrelevant, whether positive or negative - and I feel the case is a sound one without feeling the need to resort to intentional deception and disingenuousness. I wouldn't support Brazil, Spain or France for the same reason that I have no interest in supporting NI. None of the aforementioned have any relevance to me as an Irish national.
With the likes of Nedum Onuoha and Chinedu Vine in mind, would that be the case even if they acquire it before the age of 18?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Vielen dank, mein Herr. You are too kind, I'm not sure my net ramblings are always evidence of sanity :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I think almost all NI fans accept that anyone from there is eligible for the Republic's team given your nationality laws. Responses vary from ignore or grin and bear it, through continuing to argue around details (eg not if they've played for us as adults, please*) and ultimately hostility. It's a shame but I suspect the Hawk is just letting off steam and doesn't realy want to discuss in detail.
As Danny Invincible suggested in the long article, some journos and politicians are deliberately using the issue to stir things more generally. Nelson Mancausla, for example. He's not stupid, just sectarian (and nuts).
* what Phil T and others argued in that open letter to the IFA on OWC, basically. Why is it ludicrous, as Pred claims?
PS the Predator- Hawk spat reminds me of another big bird about to maker her entrance in Europa League round two. Serena (after Williams) has the day job of scaring pigeons away from Seaview's hallowed astroturf, but maybe she'll pounce if anything falls kindly in Fulham's penalty box? Or Runavik's, just possibly...
Are we talking about the AoNISC letter that was published in the Irish News? There were plenty of factual inaccuracies and falsehoods in that letter.
The full text read as follows (I'll highlight just some of the more dubious claims, hysterical nonsense and factual errors):
Most of it, then.Quote:
The Carling Cup of Nations (or Celtic Cup) has brought a number of issues relating to the Northern Ireland team, the IFA and the IFA's relationship with the FAI to the fore. While the recent boycott of the tournament by Northern Ireland fans, over their treatment by the IFA, FAI and Irish police, has attracted a good deal of publicity, it should be noted that an informal pre-existing boycott was already in place, with many supporters, including some who have followed the team to South America, the United States, the Caribbean and the farthest corners of Europe, refusing to make the short trip to Dublin to watch our team. The primary reason for this boycott is the increasing selection of Northern Ireland born or capped players by the FAI, despite their already representing Northern Ireland at all levels up to, and now including, full international.
The time has come for the IFA to make a stand against this practice; if it continues the very existence of the association and the international team is endangered. We recognise that this is not a situation of the IFA's making, that FIFA's ruling on player eligibility was challenged by the association, and that strenuous efforts have been made by the IFA, as part of its "Football For All" scheme, to ensure that football in Northern Ireland remains cross-community and teams at all levels are selected on merit alone.
FIFA's ruling has placed our country's team at a disadvantage faced by no other, namely, every single player eligible to play for us can also be selected by the FAI. The FAI's shameless exploitation of this rule to the detriment of Northern Ireland teams, and the public statements of its officials vowing to continue and expand this practice, makes cordial relations between the two associations impossible. Our objection is based on a matter of principle, that the selection of players who have played for Northern Ireland at every level - full international included – by the FAI is unethical, opportunistic and, by accident or design, sectarian, and must cease.
While we object to the precedent that the FIFA ruling, and subsequent CAS judgement, have established, we must stress that we accept that some players from Northern Ireland will choose to represent the Republic of Ireland team. This is, of course, regrettable, but we absolutely and unequivocally respect their choice. To those players considering switching allegiance, however, we say this: please do not accept a call-up from the IFA unless it is your intention to play for Northern Ireland. Your actions let down fans who give you unstinting support, waste the scarce resources of the IFA and, worst of all, deny a cap to someone who genuinely wanted it and would have been proud to accept it. Such expedient behaviour in denying another player the chance to win a cap, the highest honour in international football, is utterly unethical and reflects poorly on those who do it.
As longstanding supporters of the Northern Ireland team we urge the IFA to act upon the following proposal: it must secure a public commitment from the FAI, or a joint statement from both associations to the same effect, that it will no longer select players who have represented Northern Ireland at U19 level and above, regardless of FIFA's rules and regardless of whether or not a senior cap was won in a friendly international. This amounts to, in essence, the reintroduction of the gentleman's agreement which existed for over fifty years and worked to the mutual benefit of both associations.
If the FAI is prepared to make this commitment, the IFA must, without question, reciprocate, and not select players who have previously represented the Republic of Ireland, even if they were born in Northern Ireland; if the FAI refuses and continues to behave in its current unscrupulous and unprincipled way, behaviour which threatens the continued existence of the IFA and Northern Ireland team, then we demand that all co-operation between the two associations at all levels cease.
The forthcoming fixture between the two countries is an ideal opportunity for the associations to bring this matter to an amicable conclusion and, in the name of continued cordial relations, to publicly announce that a binding agreement on player selection has been reached. Such an agreement is in the interests of all concerned as it would strengthen and equalise the relationship between the FAI and IFA and end distractive speculation surrounding players.
If the IFA refuses to pursue this course of action, then it will have declared itself unfit to run football in Northern Ireland. In this event, its senior administrators must resign and be replaced by people who will serve the national team's best interests.
To our team which will take the field in Dublin without our usual vocal support, we are deeply sorry that we cannot be in attendance, but be assured that we are with you in spirit: Play with pride. Play with passion. Play for the shirt.
Hmm, well what else would we expect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
:rolleyes:
The trouble is when you're just paranoid, things like rationale and logic go out the window!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Can't speak for NB, but as GR says below his own contribution is rarely consistent of anything, besides provoking irritated bemusement.
;)
He's working on his next artistic project with Alex Bruce. Given the season, nothing to do with the naked flame....Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
You're under-selling yourself there just a bit....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Because FIFA & the CAS Ruling have defined something else.Quote:
I think almost all NI fans accept that anyone from there is eligible for the Republic's team given your nationality laws. Responses vary from ignore or grin and bear it, through continuing to argue around details (eg not if they've played for us as adults, please*) and ultimately hostility. It's a shame but I suspect the Hawk is just letting off steam and doesn't realy want to discuss in detail.
* what Phil T and others argued in that open letter to the IFA on OWC, basically. Why is it ludicrous, as Pred claims?
Given the machinations of the former and London 2012, just be grateful you still have a team....
You'll have to post up the link I sent through for this to make any great sense??Quote:
PS the Predator- Hawk spat reminds me of another big bird about to maker her entrance in Europa League round two. Serena (after Williams) has the day job of scaring pigeons away from Seaview's hallowed astroturf, but maybe she'll pounce if anything falls kindly in Fulham's penalty box?
Gone to build The Wickerman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
He was last seen round these parts on the 25th of March. I do hope he comes back as I had left a few things for him to have a think about. (Yes, it's that petty.) I don't recall having seen him lately on OWC lately either, mind.
I like to express my contempt for written documents by burning them. At the very least a forceful serve toward the waste bin.Quote:
That would imply there's actually some merit to the article to make it worth countering, meanwhile anyone with have a brain could tell for themselves its all ill-informed rambling & treat it with the contempt it deserves by ignoring it
That ignoring lark is awfully apathetic.
To my surprise, my account was activated a few hours ago, so I just left a relatively brief response to the discussion that had been going on: http://taboard.com/forum/index.php?s...post&p=1939722Quote:
Originally Posted by Newryrep
I don't know about the second chap but according to the info available, Ned is a naturalised British national since he was a kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I'd be 99% certain he qualifies for England under art 15 and 16.
Does it matter how he qualifies? There is absolutely no doubt that he can play for England and Nigeria.
It just matters who he plays for first. He can only change to the second association under the terms of article 18.
I think you're on the right track here Danny. The Kernaghan situation was a little different as, under the IFA's qualification rules at the time, he was not eligible to play for Northern Ireland. In this case, it seems that the FAI saw no problem in including him in FAI selections.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
While it has been established that there was no "gentleman's agreement" in place there was definitely no clarity around the eligibility of those in the North to represent the FAI between 1946 and the late-90s as you have pointed out. I think its fair to assume that the FAI and the IFA weren't aware of what FIFA's rules allowed in this regard.
We know now that the Good Friday Agreement did not change anything with regard to FIFA's qualification rules but there was a change in the wording which people may have considered to be significant. Under the 1956 Act those born in the six counties after independence were "entitled" to be an Irish citizen but were not "automatically" an Irish citizen. I can only assume that the Northern-born players (e.g. Jennings, O'Neill, Armstrong, Donaghy) were all aware that they could hold Irish citizenship but never believed that they were entitled to play for the FAI. I also believe that the FAI were not aware that these players were eligible for selection. FIFA have clarified the existing rules in much greater detail in recent years.
The Kernaghan situation was probably a pivotal point as when Northern-born players saw the details of his qualification the likes of Ger Crossley asked the question about their own eligibility. I genuinely do not remember any discussion of this issue in the 70s or 80s as the players and the associations were not aware that this option was available to them (even though it seems to have been allowed under the FIFA rules).
The main reason I'm interested in which article in particular it is under which certain players qualify is because it might help clarify who could actually be potentially eligible to play for us. If fourth-generation Italians are able to represent Italy (not that I'm necessarily saying they can, because both the Camoranesi and Motta examples have proved inconclusive), then we could conclude that article 15 might be more flexible than we might originally have thought as that would be the only article under which such examples possibly could qualify. It could potentially leave open the possibility of fourth-generation Irish nationals being eligible to represent Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Am I correct in assuming that anyone who assumes a nationality before the age of 18 can qualify for the association of that country? The rules don't specify such, but it would appear to be the case with regard to a lot of Switzerland's current internationals, for example, and I remember CD saying something along those lines earlier in the thread, stating that it was implicit due to the "after reaching the age of 18" clause in article 17.
Vine is a Nigerian-born Irish national. His circumstances are pretty much identical to Onuoha's, except he moved to Ireland rather than England at a young age and was raised here, so I assume, like how Onuoha qualifies to play for England, Vine qualifies to play for Ireland.
I suppose that is another possibility. Perhaps the FAI really just weren't sure of the situation themselves and, even though there was no gentleman's agreement relating to the status of Irish nationals, had accidentally assumed that when FIFA ruled on the two jurisdictions around the 1950s that it had had some implication for the status of Irish nationals-to-be born in the IFA's jurisdiction. Who knows? Of course, it couldn't have had any future implications for them because even the 1946 dictat issued by Ivo Schricker outlined how the eligibility criterion was one reliant on players being "subjects of the country they represent".Quote:
Originally Posted by EastTerracer
I wonder would anyone have any contacts in the FAI from whom they could try and get an answer on this, because it is a peculiar one to my mind. I've e-mailed the FAI twice in recent times with questions relating to the eligibility issue, and Adam Barton's eligibility in particular, but didn't have much luck with a response so I dunno if there's much point going that route again.
Kernaghan would have been eligible for NI if it hadn't been for an internal agreement between the British associations not to select players via a grand-parental link. Perhaps, once the FAI saw the IFA could have no objection to his selection, they were happy to investigate and approach him. As you suggest, possibly this led to some Eureka moment within the FAI and more and more players striking upon the realisation that they were, in fact, eligible to play for Ireland. Possibly, the FAI had even feared that if they started inviting northern Irish nationals into their squads prior to the years leading up to the Good Friday Agreement, that the IFA would complain and FIFA would intervene, deem Irish nationality law irredentist and penalise the association. Although, it's not as if there's ever been an indication that FIFA would indeed have been prepared to intervene in such a situation. The federation, for example, seems content enough with the situation regarding extra-territorial Turkish citizenship for Northern Cypriots despite recognising the whole island of Cyprus as the 'de jure' territory of the Cyprus Football Association. FIFA never had any problem whatsoever with Muzzy Izzet or Kâzım Kâzım representing Turkey despite their Cypriot roots. I think your last paragraph is spot on. Even if the FAI were reluctant to cause a stir with the IFA, it would have been difficult for them to turn away Irish nationals willing to declare for them once a realisation set in.
Not necessarily. The FAI sought to make players born within its jurisdictation ineligible to represent the IFA "for international purposes" (letter to FIFA 1946). What constituted the FAI's and the IFA's jurisdictation wasn't clearly defined before FIFA's intervention in 1953. For example the IFA selected players on an All-Ireland basis during this time period (1946 - 1953). However FIFA did state to the FAI in 1946 that (for international purposes) "players must be subjects of the country they represent" and "players born in the area of your jurisdiction" could not represent the IFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
The intervention of FIFA in 1953 divided the existing player pool based on place of birth and the political border on the island. This most likely mirrored the FAI's understanding of player eligibility at the time. The wording of the 1946 letter to FIFA is "players born within the area of jurisdiction".
See above comments. The FAI's understanding of eligibility was most likely based on "place of birth" (1946 FIFA letter) an understanding reinforced by the 1953 FIFA intervention which divided the island's existing playing pool based on place of birth.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Player selection to the FAI's teams at the time wasn't the most efficient. Up until the 1970's players were selected for the FAI teams by a 5 man selection committee. The make-up of the committee changed on a regular basis. Johnny Giles states in his book his disillusion with this selection process as there was no consistency in player selection and questions their abilities/ knowledge to pick the best players. If you consider how this selection committee worked, it is highly unlikely that there was any movement to evolve the understanding of Irish player eligibility beyond "place of birth" as set forth by FIFA's intervention in 1953 given the inefficiencies of the selection process and the constant change in the make-up of the selection committee.
I no longer post on OWC, and haven't done so for several months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Is that because you would disagree with some of your fellow fans on there?
And do they know/have they noticed? Are you likely to return?
1. No.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
2. I couldn't give two flying ones whether they know/have noticed or not.
3. Never say never.
Fair enough, but your answer to 1. puzzles me. But your prerogative.
Nothing too puzzling about it - the essence of a good discussion board is diversity of opinion. I disagree with my fellow fans on lots of issues pertaining to the Northern Ireland team. I agree with them on lots of issues too You disagree with your fellow fans on lots of issues pertaining to the ROI team, and agree with them on lots of issues too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Such is the basis for discussion and debate, based on one's opinions.
None of that is the reason why I don't post on OWC any longer - For now, I prefer expressing my opinions on salient issues, and having them challenged, on other discussion forums. That's all really.
Can see where you're coming from. Having witnessed it, would suspect 'arguing' with most of the other crowd isn't too much fun at times.....
I think it's one thing to "argue" with eye's open.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Quite another to "argue" with eyes shut, and an unwillingness and/or inability to open them.
It's easier for some to shoot the messenger, rather than deal with the realities of the message.
Get my drift?
Heh, exactly. On this we understand each other!
It would be generous to say you are hypothesising because you have absolutely no evidence to start with.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
4th generation Italians (born abroad but descendant from an Italian great grandparent) can become Italian nationals but they don't qualify for Italy under FIFA's rules, unless they fulfill the residency requirements of art 17.
I think you are looking for comfort zone where there is an absolute certainty.Quote:
Am I correct in assuming that anyone who assumes a nationality before the age of 18 can qualify for the association of that country? The rules don't specify such, but it would appear to be the case with regard to a lot of Switzerland's current internationals, for example, and I remember CD saying something along those lines earlier in the thread, stating that it was implicit due to the "after reaching the age of 18" clause in article 17.
I'm more used to uncertainty, accepting what is evident now and keeping an open mind to some degree.
Article 15 isn't an exact mathematical calculation of eligibity.
But you can take it that if a family move to a new country/a kid grows up in that country, becomes a naturalised citizen, he then qualifies to play for that country under article 15. I'd agree with Charlie that 18 years is the implied age limit, after which a player who moves to another country, then has to satisfy the terms of article 17 in order to play for that new country.
Here is a question.
A capped player at underage level has dual nationality, Brazil & Italian. But had acquired the 2nd nationality (Italian) due to 4th generation rights.
Lets say he was capped for Brazil at underage level and now wants to declare for Italy under the terms of article 18.
Is there anything in article 18 to say he can't declare for Italy?
No dispute there. FIFA eligibility legislation is our oyster. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
How can you be certain of this? Lack of evidence doesn't necessarily negate the possibility surely?Quote:
4th generation Italians (born abroad but descendant from an Italian great grandparent) can become Italian nationals but they don't qualify for Italy under FIFA's rules, unless they fulfill the residency requirements of art 17.
That is to presuppose that he can indeed play for Italy in light of his fourth-generation citizenship. Anyway, article 18 says:Quote:
Here is a question.
A capped player at underage level has dual nationality, Brazil & Italian. But had acquired the 2nd nationality (Italian) due to 4th generation rights.
Lets say he was capped for Brazil at underage level and now wants to declare for Italy under the terms of article 18.
Is there anything in article 18 to say he can't declare for Italy?
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, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions:
a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition at ‘A’ international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an official competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play.
I think the highlighted bit is possibly relevant to your question? I believe it was the clause that put the spanner in the works as regards Mikel Arteta's possible eligibility to play for England as he'd represented Spain at youth level whilst not yet in possession of British nationality.
Just to use the example of Motta, his Italian citizenship is derived from a grandfather, according to UEFA at least, although other sources say it's derived from a great-grandfather and go as far to give the actual name, age and year of arrival in Brazil of this apparent great-grandfather. It is my understanding that his Italian citizenship facilitated his move to Europe when he first signed for Barcelona. To later play for Italy, he must also have held his Italian nationality anyway at the time of representing Brazil at under-17 and under-23 levels. Does that provide any enlightenment?
I think you've the dates slightly mixed up. It was by the dictat issued in April of 1951 that the IFA stopped selecting Irish citizens, although I don't think they'd actually selected an Irish citizen after their British Home Championship game with Wales in March of 1950. Tom Aherne, Reg Ryan, Davy Walsh and the captain Con Martin were the last Irish citizens to play for the IFA at the time. As a consequence, the FAI began pressuring UK-based Irish citizens to sign an undertaking not to play for the IFA. Jackie Carey was the last to comply with this in April of 1950, I believe. The IFA complained to FIFA about this practice, and although FIFA ruled that the FAI's actions were not legitimate, it also made clear to the IFA that it was in no position to be selecting "citizens of Éire" anyway, even for "Home Nations" games if the FAI objected. Of course, the FAI did object.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
The 1953 agreement wasn't related to player eligibility for either association nor did it relate to the jurisdiction of either association, to my knowledge anyway. It merely related to what you might call naming rights, as both teams were still competing in FIFA competition under the name "Ireland", even though the boundary on jurisdictions had already been set in 1946 for FIFA competition (although, for the IFA, this didn't extend to "Home Nations" games until 1951).
From Wikipedia (referenced):
At FIFA's 1953 congress, its Rule 3 was amended so that an international team must use "that title ... recognised politically and geographically of the countries or territories". The FAI initially claimed Rule 3 gave them the right to the name Ireland, but FIFA subsequently ruled neither team could be referred to as Ireland, decreeing that the FAI team be officially designated as the Republic of Ireland, while the IFA team was to become Northern Ireland. The IFA objected and in 1954 was permitted to continue using the name Ireland in Home Internationals, based on the 1923 agreement. This practice was discontinued in the late 1970s.
I think it's fair to assume that the FAI had acknowledged their governing jurisdiction was limited to the Irish state by the end of 1946 at least, in compliance with FIFA regulations on the matter. That's not to say they acknowledged anything with relation to the future status of Irish citizens born anywhere in the world outside their jurisdiction.
The 1946 letter from Ivo Schricker actually referred expressly to "subjects" rather than place of birth. The letter read:Quote:
The FAI's understanding of eligibility was most likely based on "place of birth" (1946 FIFA letter) an understanding reinforced by the 1953 FIFA intervention which divided the island's existing playing pool based on place of birth.
Art. 21 al. 2 of the Regulations of the F.I.F.A. (…) reads as follows:
“The players (NB. of International Matches) must be selected by the National Associations concerned and be subjects of the country they represent”
In light of this, there was no reason for the FAI to believe that the "players born in [the FAI's] jurisdiction" clause relevant to limiting the IFA's selection policy was relevant to them, but it appears they may well have assumed, erroneously, that it invoked a territorial test. Of course, as you suggest in your last paragraph, it's still entirely possible that the FAI had been misinterpreting the rules for about half a century or just never really investigated the true scope of their rights.
Not just a lack of evidence but a complete lack of evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Anyway it's just a certainty derived from the FIFA rules, their interpretation and practice of those rules. Should something change with their practice then the certainty will be in some doubt :)
Back to the question
I think there is something missing in there which I have inserted in boldQuote:
article 18 says:
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, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions......:
'request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country for which he is eligibile to play for'
I think the bit in bold is assumed by FIFA and taken for granted.
To my mind it is not clear what FIFA mean by ' an international match in an official competition for his current Association,'Quote:
Just to use the example of Motta, his Italian citizenship is derived from a grandfather, according to UEFA at least, although other sources say it's derived from a great-grandfather and go as far to give the actual name, age and year of arrival in Brazil of this apparent great-grandfather. It is my understanding that his Italian citizenship facilitated his move to Europe when he first signed for Barcelona. To later play for Italy, he must also have held his Italian nationality anyway at the time of representing Brazil at under-17 and under-23 levels. Does that provide any enlightenment?
I understand that to mean, only Qualification games/Finals for the Euros etc and World Cup, at underage level.
Most all 2nd generation, have the dual nationality at birth so article 18 poses no difficulties, eg Ciaran Clark.
Has their been an example of a 3rd generation player whose request to transfer associations was rejected by FIFA because he acquired the 2nd nationality after appearing for his first association in an official competition?
I would interpret that in the same way. Would it be fair to use Tony Kane as an example? He played for NI at under-age (presumably competitively in at least one fixture as the statement on his Wiki references a link to an albeit-no-longer-existing page on the UEFA site, but it's probably fair to assume it once contained info on his NI appearances in UEFA competition) before "switching" to the FAI and playing in under-age friendlies for Ireland. If he'd played in a competitive game at any level for us, however, this would have effected his one switch and would have disabled the possibility of him returning to the IFA. As it was, he didn't play for us competitively and "switched back" to the IFA, even though the rules expressly permit only one switch of association, so clearly, friendlies such as the Madeira Cup, in which Kane played, don't count as official competition, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I'm trying to think, but not aware of any off the top of my head. Possibly Kevin Nolan as he announced in the media that he wasn't actually eligible for us last year, although I remember the supposed reason he gave didn't provide much clarity as to why at the time. Not sure exactly what he said now and I can't find the exact story. He spoke of being a generation out or something, but, as far as I'd been aware, his grandfather had been Irish.Quote:
Has their been an example of a 3rd generation player whose request to transfer associations was rejected by FIFA because he acquired the 2nd nationality after appearing for his first association in an official competition?
On the other hand, are there any third generation players in the Irish context whose request to transfer has been accepted after appearing for an original association in an official competition?
Nolan couldn't obtain Irish Nationality because none from the 4 grandparents were born in Ireland.
Probably his great grandparent was Irish born.
Are you sure?
Had been told both his parents from The Pale but sounds wrong now I'm writing?
His parents certainly weren't Irish-born. He'd have qualified unquestionably then as he'd be an automatic national from birth. Nolan has Dutch roots as well, for what it's worth.
Doubt this, it was more tenuous than that as far as I remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
According to this link, almost a decade old, he was 'eligible' at some point?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...an-663574.html
If that was the case, he'd be eligible again since the age cap of 21 years after which a player would be tied to an association he represented was abolished by FIFA, unless, of course, he did apply for Irish citizenship in recent years and acquired it but was adjudged by FIFA not to have possessed it at the time he'd played for the FA.
The media is terribly unreliable when it comes to this sort of thing though.
Danny,Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I had a longer response prepared but technical issues deleted it. :)
But briefly consider how the FAI viewed the IFA's entry to FIFA in 1946 and what perceived implications it had for the FAI. Remember the IFA considered itself the association for the island, was backed by the other British associations and sat on the international board. In this context the FAI was seeking in 1946 to confine the scope of the IFA to NI to ensure the validity of its existence. The FAI had previously shown a willingness to confine itself to the then Irish Free State to validate its existence (FAIFS) but ultimate desire to operate as an All-Ireland association (see immediate early years after formation and the period 1936 -1946). By seeking to confine the IFA to NI, the FAI wasn't necessarily accepting that its scope was 26 counties but rather accepting a co-existence with the IFA as a means to ensure its existence.
FIFA's intervention regarding player eligibility related to FIFA regulated competition - hence the 1953 date. Player selection in non-FIFA regulated games was a matter to be resolved between the FAI and the IFA.
The 1946 correspondence between the FAI and FIFA was focused on the issue of place of birth. The FAI's letter to FIFA concentrated on this issue and while FIFA's response stated "subjects of the country they represent" it does specifically response to answering the FAI direct question on place of birth as the determinant of eligibility in the Irish context.
As to why the FAI did not select NI born players for X amount of years, they are a number of factors to consider; the status of the FAI in relation to the IFA, how the FAI was run (pretty much by volunteers up until the mid 1980's), the player selection process.
OK, I get that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
However...
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here fully. Are you saying that there was still something to be distinguished by 1953 (and even after) other than the two associations using a common team name? And what were the correspondences of 1946 and 1951 if not dictats clarifying and finalising jurisdiction and player eligibility at the time?Quote:
FIFA's intervention regarding player eligibility related to FIFA regulated competition - hence the 1953 date. Player selection in non-FIFA regulated games was a matter to be resolved between the FAI and the IFA.
Is the following timeline giving a brief overview, to my understanding, of the various developments around the time incorrect somewhere?:
1946: In essence, the FAI requests FIFA to formally acknowledge its exclusive jurisdiction by confirming that players born within the 26 counties cannot be selected by the IFA. FIFA responds by acknowledging the exclusive jurisdiction and outlines the rules for FIFA-sanctioned competition, pointing out that players must be "subjects" of the country they're representing.
1946-1950: As the IFA refuses to accept that the 1946 dictat limiting their selection of Irish citizens applies to "Home Nations" games, they continue to select players from the FAI's jurisdiction for such games. As a consequence, the FAI asks its players to sign an undertaking not to play for the IFA.
1951: The IFA complains to FIFA about the FAI demanding this of its players and FIFA responds by confirming it is not in line with their rules but that the IFA can no longer select "citizens of Éire" in even "Home Nations" games, unless the FAI was to offer no objection. As the FAI objected to the practice, the effect was to extend the effect of the 1946 dictat from FIFA-sanctioned competition alone to "Home Nations" games.
1953: As both teams are still using "Ireland" as a team name, FIFA distinguishes by designating the IFA team as "Northern Ireland" and the FAI team as the "Republic of Ireland".
Edit: I meant to add that the 1946 dictat had the effect of basing eligibility on place of birth for the meantime as neither jus soli nor jus sanguinis extra-territorial Irish citizenship had yet been established into Irish law by that point. That came into effect in 1956 with the passing of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956.
There are indications that FIFA was a reluctant intermediator in the "dispute" between the FAI and the IFA. Despite the 1946 correspondences the IFA continued to select players on an All-Ireland basis as FIFA distanced itself from the workings of the Home Championship which was now doubling as a WC qualifier group. This effectively stopped with the 1951 correspondences but FIFA left the door opened for the issue to resolved between the FAI and the IFA when stating an allowance in the eligibility rules for the Home Internationals not regulated as FIFA competition. This is likely where the idea of a gentleman's agreement comes from as FIFA was keen to encourage agreement reached by and between the FAI and the IFA. While you are correct that the 1953 intervention was to resolve the team name issue, it also has significance as an acceptance of the current (1950s) scope of each association's jurisdiction based on the political border. The significance of 1953 from the FAI's point of view was an acceptance by the IFA its existence and the validity of existence (although you can argue that this was already effectively achieved in 1951).Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Basically correct. Should be pointed out the FAI "lobbied" FIFA to enforce the understanding of the 1946 correspondence in the period 1946 - 1951. FIFA was reluctant to do so. The FAI took matters into their own hands by asking players to sign an undertaking not to play for the IFA. This brought about the 1951 FIFA correspondence.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Well I am sure that the information I provided about Nolan has been reported and ever since it has stood the test of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Nolan considered Ireland
"The possibility of playing for Ireland has been brought up a number of times but unfortunately my grandad and my nans are only a quarter Irish, or half Irish, and they need to be fully Irish!"
He was capped for England in an u18 qualifier, so it would have been interesting - if he had a 100% Irish born Grandparent, would he still have been eligible to declare for Ireland under article 18?
Hmm.
I'll go with the Eng.Indy version, but irrelevant now.