Printable View
That's big, non-partisan and tolerant of you, thanks :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
You can't expect top-notch material in a comedy masterclass on this thread.It would fly way over some regulars' heads.
PS i see from today's paper that Robbie Keane has suffered a family bereavement. Condolences.
To be fair The Rotund one has turned sad into an art form...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33500785
Presumably, either New Zealand never requested the 'special dispensation' from FIFA or the OFC are acting under their own interpretation of the eligibility statutes.
Wynne played all 4 games for New Zealand at the recent FIFA U'20 world cup and has played 12 times for the senior and underage teams in total.
The BBC article is poorly written. It seems to be unaware that many players (including English players) have qualified to represent countries without having birth links or 5 years residency after age 18 in the country.
Also I'm sure it's been raised before, but why is it that only the Home Nations have the 5 years education before 18 clause. As far as I understand this includes all British citizens, born or naturalised immigrants. So if Wynne in the same circumstances had moved to England he would be eligible for them, but because he moved to New Zealand he isn't automatically eligible. Maybe I'm missing something and the players who acquire British nationality still require the 'special dispensation'.
Unusual one. Assuming the allegation is true, why is Wynne's ineligibility only being picked up upon now considering he has already played in FIFA-sanctioned competition for NZ? It definitely appears he doesn't satisfy the strict wording of the statutes as he is only 20 (and wasn't born in NZ, nor were any of his parents/grandparents), so I can only assume, if FIFA are to uphold the complaint and dismiss the NZ appeal, that the NZ association hadn't requested the "special dispensation" that other young players have been granted by the Players' Status Committee. Is it possible that Wynne has been granted special dispensation by the FIFA PSC but that the OFC are not or have not been made aware of it and have jumped the gun, assuming the player to be ineligible on the basis of a strict application of the statutes?
The British associations (or any set of associations sharing a common nationality) are expressly permitted to delete or amend the fourth criterion, littera (d), of par. 1 of the article concerning them, article 6, by virtue of par. 2, if all are in common agreement, so the British associations have decided they'd prefer to expect otherwise-non-qualifying players to have completed 5 years of education before the age of 18 in the country concerned rather than have simply lived in the country concerned for 2 years, as is stipulated in the present wording of article 6.1(d).
It's strange because it only comes to light and becomes an issue due to Vanuatu lodging a protest following the match (you have a matter of hours to do so, I believe). Presumably, they were sitting on this information as someone in their camp was suspicious of the player's eligibility. But then, how would they know whether he had or had not been granted 'special dispensation' by the FIFA Players' Status Committee?
Ultimately, the statutes make clear that it is up to the national associations to ensure that their representatives satisfy the eligibility criteria, so if New Zealand failed to request Wynne's 'special dispensation' to enable him to play for them, that is on them.
From this article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news...ectid=11480439
it says that Wynne moved to New Zealand in January 2010 when he was 14 and he first represented New Zealand in 2014, so he was in the country less than 5 years at that time. For him to have inherited citizenship through his naturalised New Zealand citizen parent, this would have had to have happened before his 16th birthday in March 2011, meaning the parent would have had to have been living in New Zealand prior to March 2006. The other route to citizenship would be through a grant from the Minister of Internal Affairs that is in the public interest. Either way, he made his debut after living in the country for less than 5 years.
The article also has the following from the chief executive, Andy Martin:
They're not saying much as there is a legal case ongoing, but my guess would be that they were oblivious of the need to request any 'special dispensation' and just assumed he was eligible. I guess if an organisation is not used to such cases, they probably don't even have the required staff in place to ensure that all the appropriate i's are dotted and t's are crossed.Quote:
Martin said the organisation believed all players were eligible and had received confirmation of this from the organisers of the Pacific Games, of which the qualifying tournament was a part.
It's a misnomer to call the dispensation 'special', it's a routine dispensation granted, once it's established that the situation is transparently organic and not exploitative.
Of course, we must remember that exemptions are granted on a case-by-case basis or, as it would appear from the cases to date, "when a player can prove he has lived in its country of naturalization for a period close to five-year, even before the age of 18". It's entirely possible that Wynne might still have been granted his routine exemption ( ;) ) despite only having resided in NZ for, say, three or four years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irwin3
According to Ben Strang, Andy Martin (head of NZF) thinks Wynne satisfies the eligibility criteria of article 6: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/footbal...clear-cut.html
Indeed, Wynne would satisfy article 6 (on account of having lived in NZ for at least two years) if that article actually applied to players of Kiwi nationality. It seems Martin has made the same mistake the IFA made with Kearns et al.
Yeah, it seems as though they really didn't know what they're dealing with and haven't been asking for exemptions for players. Another article from that site.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/footbal...nt-new-zealand
I thought NZ had a separate carve-out granted by God to select any non-Aussie born in the Southern Hemisphere. Oh wait, that's rugby, sorry.
'New Zealand Football chief executive Andy Martin said on Tuesday that his organisation believes Wynne is eligible to play for New Zealand based on Article 6 of the Fifa statutes.'Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
That interpretation of article 6 is misplaced.
'it is understood that Article 6 of the Fifa statutes relates to players who were born with dual nationality, giving them the ability to represent more than one national association at international level.'
Nope
Article 6 applies to a player whose single nationality qualifies him for more than one association.
However a NZ citizenship only qualifies a player to play for NZ and likewise a South African citizenship qualifies only for SA.
Therefore, the New Zealand FA, by using article 6, are trying to argue that Wynne' SA citizenship qualified him to play for NZ.
That's about as dumb as you can get (outside the borders of the IFA).
Even Blatter would be tempted to have a good laugh at that one.
All NZ had to do was just register Wynne with FIFA as if he was a regular dual national player and make it known that they had not kidnapped him from Africa.
'it is understood that Article 6 of the Fifa statutes relates to players who were born with dual nationality'
That's another thing, Wynne was not born a dual national.
If Wynne became a NZ citizen before the age of 18, then I suspect NZ would have a rock solid case.
I casually skimmed through that bit and the two subsequent paragraphs in light of the actual wording of the regulation having been quoted and distracted by the emphasis on the correct applicability of article 7 (as well as juicy extra info on the UAE and Australian proposals previously mentioned by Yann Hafner), somehow completely misreading the gist of it and missing what is quite the clanger. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by geysir
A player born in the Faroes (there is no such thing as Faroese nationality) can only represent Denmark if he shares a territorial connection with Denmark by virtue of birth of parents/grandparents in Denmark or having resided there for two years. He isn't just automatically eligible by virtue of being Faroese (born in the Faroes) or because the Faroese also happen to share Danish nationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Strang
That would be to suggest that a player born in one of England, NI, Scotland or Wales would be eligible to play for any of the other three besides the territory in which he was born simply on account of his birth in the UK/British citizenship, which is a major misinterpretation.
Also, Christian Karembeu first played for France in 1992, long before the introduction of the current article 6 and the significant rule changes post-2004. The rule under which he was eligible to play for France then on account of his French nationality read:
"Any player who is a naturalised citizen of a country in virtue of that country’s laws shall be eligible to play for a national or representative team of that country."
To the best of my knowledge, there was no rule in place at the time (other than an internal agreement amongst the British associations or unwritten convention) that obstructed players of a nationality shared by one or more teams from choosing to play for any of those teams sharing that nationality.
Karembeu moved to France at the age of 17 in 1988 and first played for France in 1992, so would have been eligible on account of residence anyway had the current rules been in place then and had article 6 actually applied to him then. Also, New Caledonia were only admitted to FIFA in 2004. I'm not sure it would even be fair to assume that article 6 would apply to Karembeu were he to appear on the scene today. French nationality is shared by only two teams, according to this; France and Tahiti. Meanwhile, New Caledonia has had separate citizenship since 1999. Isn't it therefore more correct to say that article 7 would have applied to Karembeu were the current rules in place back in the early '90s along with the present situation of distinct nationality? Obviously, if France and New Caledonia still shared a common nationality nowadays, article 6 would act as the distinguisher in order to discern who was and who was not eligible to play for the teams of the two respective territories.
If anyone wants an example of the rule in action, they need look no further than any player who plays for one of the four British associations.
Edit: Just checking back through my emails/old posts and I see Yann Hafner informed me that New Caledonia are actually one of the teams that share French nationality even though they are missing from the list I linked to above (along with Gibraltar). That would appear to conflict with the information in another link I included above which suggested that New Caledonia had a distinct citizenship since 1999, however. Either way, I don't think it would be correct or appropriate to describe Christian Karembeu's international career as being an example of the rule in action.
Under article 5, a player born in the UK (a UK citizen) would be fully entitled to declare for any of the 4 UK associations.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
That's why we have article 6, to set the criteria for situations like the single UK citizenship.
Likewise a player born in the Faroes would be entitled to declare for Denmark under article 5.
Ben Strong "It is understood that Article 6 of the Fifa statutes relates to players who were born with dual nationality, giving them the ability to represent more than one national association at international level."
Ben has a problem understanding the term 'single nationality'
Article 6 is strictly about players whose single nationality qualifies them for more than one association.
A player who is born a dual national, qualifies for both countries under article 5.
Except when he is born in NI, then he qualifies for one under article 5 and the other under article 6 :)
Our lad Wynne, acquired his 2nd nationality after the age of 18, therefore the NZF were required to prove Wynne's eligibility under the terms of article 7 to FIFA, by pointing that he had been resident in NZ since the age of 14. Then FIFA would have dispensed their rubber stamp.
I was in touch with Ben Strang through Twitter about Wynne and advised him to get in touch with Yann. Sure enough, he did and has straightened things out a bit, although Yann tells me it still features a few mistakes: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/footbal...ibility-expert
I asked Yann myself what he made of the idea that Jimmy McGeough would have had to seek approbation from FIFA/the IFA in order to play for the FAI in 1969 - Jimmy was clear it was the FAI who had asked him to seek their permission when I spoke to him - and I showed Yann the 1969 'Goal' cutting I posted earlier in the thread mentioning that dual nationals were free to play for Ireland after it was decided they were not required by the associations of their birth countries. Yann said he had no knowledge of any legal grounds for such a condition. Of course, that doesn't completely rule out the possibility that legal grounds did exist, and Yann admits this whilst stating that processes were less formal in those days, so it might well have been custom rather than rule.
I suggested that perhaps it was a case of the FAI being subservient and unwilling to rock the boat. (Is that likely? What would the FAI's motive be in doing that though and how would they have stood to benefit exactly?) Yann said "it is possible the FAI might have been deferential to the other associations (the four British association had their one representative at FIFA exco)". Ultimately though, we have no solid answer on that matter yet. I have been busy of late with various things, but I'm going to try and get back in touch with Peter Sherrard of the FAI within the next fortnight or so.
Absolute shambles in NZ: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a...ectid=11488757
Quote:
Originally Posted by NZ Herald
Interesting discussion on Monday's Second Captains Football podcast with a Nigerian journalist about Jordan Ibe possibly declaring for Nigeria, along with other English-born players of Nigerian descent: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/second-captains
Had a listen to that there. The Nigerian journalist was, seemingly, eager to infer that the Nigerian manager (Sunday Oliseh, Championship manager great) is highlighting to the likes of Ibe that there is a great career benefit to playing with Nigeria, as opposed to England. I was disappointed, though, that the journalist kept referring to Victor Moses in the same breath as Shola Ameobi. To be fair, I think Moses was quicker to play for Nigeria (and was a better talent than Ameobi when he made the decision). From what I gathered reading up on Moses and Ameobi's situations, Moses declaring for Nigeria would be like Clark switching when he did or Grealish sticking with us. On the other hand, Ameobi's situation would be slightly more akin to Mark Noble joining our ranks, maybe without the public remonstrations of ambivalence though.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
FIFA could open up an office in NZ so they can rubber stamp all these exemption applications. One u17 has been in NZ since the age of 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
The eligibility statute is solely there to control exploitation of children/minors and not regular migrants.
NZF need an Albert Reynolds to negotiate a deal.
Dominic Ball has moved to Rangers.
Presumably, Michael O'Neill has no problem with his switching to England having previously represented NI at underage level.