Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
tell me this , is the granting of israeli passports or german passports to people in the former soviet union irredentist?
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
tell me this , is the granting of israeli passports or german passports to people in the former soviet union irredentist?
Actually, my point was that the final part of Article 16 (Associations coming to an agreement, as the four British Associations have done) neither excludes or includes the FAI/ROI within Article 16.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
But I am coming to the conclusion that inter alia, an NI-born player who wishes to opt for the FAI will (must?) come within the definition of Article 15 (i.e. " a person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country"), in which case Article 16 also should apply (i.e. "A player who, under the terms of Article 15 is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality")
It is essentially clarification of the situation as per Annex 2, Circular 1093 etc. However, since that was hurredly rushed in, in response to the Brazil/Qatar case etc, I don't think it was designed specifically to address the Irish situation. Therefore from my reading of subsequent events, plus the wording of the new Articles, I am inclined to think FIFA now does intend this to apply to Irish players born outwith the FAI's footballing territory, inc. NI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
But do the FIFA regulations on Eligibility anywhere specify a distinction between nationality acquired at birth and nationality newly acquired later on? I'm not sure they do. (I know that the new Article 18 does specify what should happen in the event of someone acquiring a new nationality, but Article 18 deals with people switching nationality, not someone seeking to prove his eligibility for the first time.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
If Article 15 applies to someone who is NI-born, but wants to represent the FAI - and I agree it does - then I think that automatically links him to Article 16, inc the four conditions.:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
"A player who, under the terms of article 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play an international match for one of those Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions etc"
This is where I think the article's terminology is ambiguous. I think it has to read to mean nationalities (plural) to make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
This is because someone who has Article 15 nationality must also have an additional nationality, by virtue of having been born somewhere else (if he were born in the territory of the Association he wishes to represent, Articles 15 and 16 are all irrelevant).
An analogy is if you had e.g. someone whose racial background is 50% European and 50% African, for instance, you wouldn't say such a person has two ethnicities (plural). Rather you would say he has mixed ethnicity (singular).
As I said elsewhere, you need to test Article 15 with an actual example for it to make sense. A Brazilian who is suddenly granted Qatari citizenship will now have Article 15 nationality (i.e. Qatari). However, he will also have Brazilian Nationality, since that is where he's from. And FIFA clearly intends article 16, inc. conditions, to apply to him.
Ditto, our hypothethetical Derryman has article 15 nationality (Irish), but must also have British nationality from his birthplace.
So that in the absence of an exemption for the FAI, or a specified eligibility distinction re "birth nationals" and "acquired nationals", Article 16 and its conditions must also apply to him.
interesting EG, obviously I hope that your inclination is wrong here. it will be interesting to see how this develops and if it does apply in this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
You are mixing up two issues here. I don't believe there is any point in trying to force unwilling players to play for any international team, whatever the cause of their reluctance.Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerMilla
But a players desires/inclinations to play (or not) are not the same as his right to do so.
On which latter point, I do not consider it any player's right to represent any international country. Rather, it is a privilege, granted in accordance with the principles laid down by FIFA.
And the basic premise for FIFA granting that privilege is place of birth, qualified in the first place by ancestry etc. And quite evidently no-one can choose where he/she was born, nor where his parents/grandparents etc were born, therefore cannot choose his nationality, therefore has no right to choose - it's the luck of the draw.
In the case of Ireland, there are two Irish football teams. if you are born within one part of the island, you are entitled to represent one of those teams, if you are born within the other part of the island, you are entitled to represent the other.
Further, I happen to believe that this must be a purely sporting issue, not tainted or polluted by baser considerations such as money or politics. Which is where the likes of Darron Gibson comes in. I have nothing against the lad personally, and he is perfectly entitled to hold whatever political views he likes, but I don't see why he should be allowed a choice not open e.g. to a Basque separatist who dislikes having to play for Spain, or e.g. a Palestinian born within Israel, or an ethnic Pakistani born on the Indian side of the border.
Indeed, since I firmly believe that playing for NI doesn't make anyone any "more British" or "less Irish", but merely reflects the fact you're an NI footballer, then if someone like Gibson's political feelings are so strong that he feels they must preclude him from playing for NI, then that is his choice and his alone and he must live with it. This is especially so when he has the rare "get-out clause" of automatically being eligible for another country's (political) nationality, so that with two years residence, he can still effect (footballing) nationality for himself.
Of course, some people ask why, if he doesn't want to play for NI, the IFA should prevent him playing for another country, to which there are two answers.
First, the IFA has no desire to prevent anyone from representing another country, providing he meets the same eligibility criteria as everyone else in the world (inc. NI players). But why should we risk permitting someone a special exemption from the normal criteria applicable to everyone else in the world, esp when that player could come back to punish us in a subsequent game?
The second comes back to the idea that representing ones country should be a privilege i.e. not something to be switched around or modified to suit the personal preferences of the individual player. For example, some players don't much care for international football per se, only for what it brings in in terms of extra money, prestige etc. So if such a player happens to be a star in a crap team e.g. Luxembourg, should one permit him to switch to, say, Germany and earn big bucks etc, just because he has a Teutonic name and heritage from a couple of hundred years back?
Or if a player happens to fall out with a particular manager/coach etc, should he be allowed to slope off somewhere else? I recall Chris Sutton falling out with Glenn Hoddle, who made it perfectly clear he would never pick him again for England. With Sutton living in Scotland, playing for a Scottish club and carrying a British Passport, the same as every Scotsman, should he have been allowed to switch to the Jocks?
I hardly think so.
Finally, there will be players who don't actually give a damn about politics etc, so that if you give them a choice, they will immediately pick the team which suits their own personal circumstances best. Fans of the ROI will be familiar with the odd "plastic" who wasn't good enough to play for what would have been their first choice (e.g. England?), so instead opted to be Irish, out of convenience. This might be fair enough where their country of birth doesn't want them, but that is a deal different from NI's case, where we have a small enough pool of players as it is. Moreover, this is exacerbated by the fact that only the best NI-born players are likely to be of interest to the FAI i.e. those we can least afford to lose.
Worst of all, is when this is a player whom we have spotted, coaxed away from GAA or Rugby etc, spent scarce resources on developing through the youth ranks, only for this to bring him to the attention of the FAI, who then come in and take advantage of the fruits of our labour.
Sorry, but that's not my idea of what international football is, or at least should be, about. :(
ha ha moda fooka my good buddy Mr O Shea. I could not possibility answer this question or get involved in this debate!! You know the reason why my friend? I know sod all about the stuff just like yourself matey but in my case your honour I have more knodle than to get into a debate i know naaathing about But carry on an Pauline as your a laugh a minuteQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
I think the oft said retort on OWC that if any youngsters wants to play for the south they can go and live there for two years is a bit of a red herring seeing as any half decent promising young footballer is likely to be on the books of an English club before their balls have even dropped making a move to Tubbercurry a completely unrealistic option.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
You are not in any hole, you are just asking the questions that will get you to the answers you need to understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
The compromise we were told by FIFA was not accepted by both the IFA and the FAI.
I wondered about that compromise proposal from last November/ December.
It looks to me that the FIFA legal board were planning this rewording and tidying up the Statutes for some time before the compromise proposal
If the compromise was agreed, then an Irish born would have been eligible for 2 teams - NI and ROI
Imo that would have meant Statute 16 applies with a signed and sealed agreement between the two federations, the IFA and the FAI, lodged with FIFA after gaining FIFA approval for the wording.
The last part of Statute 16 says that the Federations affected can meet and hammer out an agreement as regards to the length of residency needed. No other statute has that option.
Howard Wells outright rejection of the compromise could well have boomeranged.
I think he rejected it for the wrong reasons.
And Delaney rejected it for the right reasons.
Delaney sure knows how to play the cute hoor bit.
Bottom Line
The simple fact is that nothing has changed and that the FAI team can continue to select northern born players. The article that applies is the reword Article 15:
"Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country."
The residency qualifications only comes in with the later article (18) which applies to players with dual nationalities. However as the GFA gives northerners the option on Irish or British or dual nationality then Article 15 as worded above can apply i.e. they can claim to be Irish citizens, not British or dual and as such they have a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence.
Simply,
The GFA does not only offer dual citizenship it also offers Irish citizenship i.e without British citizenship. That's why the new FIFA articles do not prevent northern born players declaring for the south
The IFA have again claimed victory prematurely on this.
While I am 100% sure Ireland can still pick players from the North I think it will not be until the next player from the north is picked for Ireland that the tickos in unionism and/or the IFA get the message.
You make the common enough mistake of considering that these Rules & Regs were framed solely with Ireland in mind: they weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maroon 7
What FIFA is saying is that where someone with dual nationality was not born in the territory of the Association he wishes to represent, (nor his parent/g'parent), he may still be eligible following a period of residency of two years. I daresay they will have had in mind the situation of e.g. Brazilian footballers needing to cross the Atlantic to play for Qatar or Cape Verde etc, rather than Derrymen having to cross Lough Swilly.
Anyhow, it is increasingly common for teenagers to move "overseas" with their family etc, in order to further their career. For example, in order to be able to sign Cesc Fabregas at 16 (2 years younger than the Spanish FA would allow him to turn fully pro in Spain), Arsenal moved his entire family to London and got his father a job. Similarly, when Man U signed Jonny Evans and his younger brother Corey, they moved the Evans family to England.
Therefore, it is hardly FIFA's fault if this option more often works in favour of some Nationals than others; once again, it is an accident of birth - the fundamental basis for all international eligibility.
It's not me saying it. I'm just repeating the mantra on OWC.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
"If they want to play for the beggars so much they can go and move there for two years, etc, etc".
Certainly seems pretty clear in Article 15 that dual nationals can play for either country for which they have citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomkerry
I suspect the proposed compromise was a well-meaning, but naive and ill-informed suggestion by FIFA, who were hoping to have to avoid coming down off the fence and decide in favour of one Association or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I don't know whether Delaney/FAI did reject it or not, but it was never going to be acceptable to the IFA. First, in principle, we have no desire to pick players from the ROI who have no more connection with NI than, say, English, Scottish or Welsh players with no connection.
Second, in practice it is never going to produce equal numbers and quality of players for us, compared with what we stand to lose the other way.
However, I still feel it strange why, if the FAI was always properly entitled to select NI-born players, that wasn't the end of it? Why did they offer a form of "compensation" to the IFA, if FIFA might just as easily have said: "Our Rules are clear, the FAI can pick from NI, so the IFA must just get on with it"?
It is possible (imo), that FIFA realised their Rules were inadequate, in that they failed to take into account the (unique?) possibility of a Government just handing out nationality/Passports from birth, as of right, to people who had never lived within their jurisdiction, which those individuals could then exploit for sporting reasons.
P.S. Since Delaney is the cute hoor we all agree he is, can someone explain to me how/why he seemed to confirm the IFA's feeling that their submission to FIFA had succeeded last year, when he spoke to the RTE journo at Dublin Airport about "Winning the battle, but losing the war"?
Some may put it that way. Myself, I prefer to ask why certain NI-born players should have to comply with a lesser standard to achieve eligibility for their chosen country than people born and living in any other part of the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maroon 7
That is, if two years in Qatar or the Cape Verde Islands is reasonable enough for a Brazilian, why is two years in Donegal any more onerous or unfair for a Derryman?
mods, can we change the title of this thread to "Avoid Like the Plague"
How wrong you were.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Ogba
I am a Unionist.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomkerry
Born and bred in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland.
I have never stolen, or grabed, any land.
Nor do harbour any intention of stealing, or grabing, any land.
In other words, nationalists play for the Republic Of Ireland, unionists for Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomkerry
Hooray for our advocate of sporting apartheid, segregation and division.
Who gives a féck what your political belief is, where you were born, what cave you grew up in, your denial of a criminal record or your intention not to pursue one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Is there a clue in the fact that you responded to it?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I was responding to comments made by kerrykingdom....but thanks all the same for your cutting intervention.
This is not football related and I suppose I dont want to get away from topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
But its a fair and honest point which us in the Republic have too respect.
I think myself that the FIFA rule is the right one in a sense. I would argue that imo if a player plays from Norn Iron at underage he should only play for Norn Iron from there on.
And if player from Norn Iron plays underage for ROI from underage should only play then for ROI.
Some may question this but I think this makes a more fair system. Its just what I think.