Eligibility Rules, Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Danny won't like Danny for this: F365

---

It got worse:

Quote:

---

Still, it could be worse…
‘Gareth Southgate believes Wilfried Zaha never possessed the inner fight to play for England’ – Sami Mokbel, Daily Mail.

‘Gareth Southgate says Wilfried Zaha did not have the passion to play for England’ – Neil Ashton, The Sun.

‘Wilfried Zaha has been accused of trying to hold England to ransom’ – John Cross, Daily Mirror. He describes Southgate as ‘angry’.

Firstly, Southgate took specific care during his press conference not to say exactly what Mokbel and Ashton claim he ‘believes’ and ‘says’. He was merely passing comment on not wanting to persuade potentially eligible footballers that they should declare for England, leaving that decision with the players themselves.

Secondly, the first two introductions above suggest that Southgate was intimating that playing for England is somehow above playing for Ivory Coast, as if there is a certain level of ‘passion’ or ‘inner fight’ required for England and that anyone failing to match that level is more fit for an alternative nation. Again, Southgate did nothing of the sort.

Thirdly, and not for the first time, Mediawatch does not know where to start with Cross. Southgate made no such accusation, and was not angry. It’s just absolute codswallop designed to stir up controversy where none exists.

---

http://www.football365.com/news/medi...han-man-united

Michael O'Neill was on OTB last night and towards the end Ger Gilroy asked him about him being "annoyed at the FAI...".
The whole thing is worth a listen but the bit that got to me starts at 18:31 and the interview ends at 21:49.

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/mi...erbies#t=18:31

I tweeted in to the show to register my annoyance at the disingenuous nature of what MONI was saying. Same tired crap again to make out that it is always about a "choice" and not about a "chance to represent their country". Grr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Michael O'Neill was on OTB last night and towards the end Ger Gilroy asked him about him being "annoyed at the FAI...".
The whole thing is worth a listen but the bit that got to me starts at 18:31 and the interview ends at 21:49.

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/mi...erbies#t=18:31

I tweeted in to the show to register my annoyance at the disingenuous nature of what MONI was saying. Same tired crap again to make out that it is always about a "choice" and not about a "chance to represent their country". Grr.

---

Almost afraid to listen to it. Will listen after work. Would love to hear a DI-special dissection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Danny won't like Danny for this: F365

---

I feel the spirit of the following piece, which appears to have been written in response to Danny Mills' ignorance, is very much relevant to discussions we've had about ourselves and players eligible to play for us in this thread and the 'Potentially eligible players' thread; 'Wilfried Zaha and Alex Iwobi deserve credit for turning down England careers — not condemnation': http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...-a7658881.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Pitt-Brooke

...

The point of international football is not the money, especially for players on Premier League salaries. But the fact is that being an England international is a commercial dream. Marketers of football boots, fizzy drinks, video games or whatever else would always want to have an England international on their adverts. By choosing not to pursue an England career, you make yourself less marketable and less rich.

---

<MODEDIT>
Removed extra paragraphs.
Last chance Danny, next time I delete the post

I had to read up on this 'Tebbit Test' he speaks of. Sounds very like the Stutts Gut Test but nobody calls that toxic. :)

Don't dare compare me to that psychopathic fascist ****!

Yikes!

According to Kilbane on Off The Ball last night - http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off..._Spains_future - Noel Whelan would have declared for us, but had been selected for the England underage side and he wasn't given a choice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

<MODEDIT>
Removed extra paragraphs.
Last change Danny, next time I delete the post

---

Hmm, the forum rule on content attribution states:

"To protect both yourself and Foot.ie from copyright infringement liability, please do not quote entire articles on the site, just an extract (a few paragraphs); and please provide the source of the article, plus a link to the original. Posts in breach of this rule will be edited and/or deleted."

Having been recently warned to quote small portions of articles when I quote something in future, I was intentionally very selective in what I quoted above and didn't quote anything remotely near the entirety of the Independent's article about Zaha. I quoted a number of paragraphs from different parts of the article that I thought were particularly relevant to earlier discussions on eligibility and association switches. For future reference and the sake of clarity, what exactly is constituted by "an extract" or how many paragraphs exactly is "a few"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

According to Kilbane on Off The Ball last night - http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off..._Spains_future - Noel Whelan would have declared for us, but had been selected for the England underage side and he wasn't given a choice

---

The Fianna Fail politician would've had more chance of an England senior call-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Hmm, the forum rule on content attribution states:

"To protect both yourself and Foot.ie from copyright infringement liability, please do not quote entire articles on the site, just an extract (a few paragraphs); and please provide the source of the article, plus a link to the original. Posts in breach of this rule will be edited and/or deleted."

Having been recently warned to quote small portions of articles when I quote something in future, I was intentionally very selective in what I quoted above and didn't quote anything remotely near the entirety of the Independent's article about Zaha. I quoted a number of paragraphs from different parts of the article that I thought were particularly relevant to earlier discussions on eligibility and association switches. For future reference and the sake of clarity, what exactly is constituted by "an extract" or how many paragraphs exactly is "a few"?

---

I posted a guideline for you a few days ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Danny, as a rule of thumb, if you're quoting more than a paragraph, then the link is enough

---

If you want to discuss it further, start a thread in the support forum. It's nothing to do with eligibility

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Michael O'Neill was on OTB last night and towards the end Ger Gilroy asked him about him being "annoyed at the FAI...".
The whole thing is worth a listen but the bit that got to me starts at 18:31 and the interview ends at 21:49.

https://soundcloud.com/offtheball/mi...erbies#t=18:31

I tweeted in to the show to register my annoyance at the disingenuous nature of what MONI was saying. Same tired crap again to make out that it is always about a "choice" and not about a "chance to represent their country". Grr.

---

O'Neill purports to be of the belief that it's unfair for one association to ask a player to switch to another association (although his framing of the situation in such terms is disingenuous as it is, as it implies that the FAI are making inappropriate demands of young vulnerable players), seemingly because he thinks players are "too young", or "not ready", to be making big career decisions before they are 21. Is O'Neill instructing his association to decline from selecting or facilitating players under the age of 21? Hardly. He's looking out for his and his association's own interests. (There's no problem with that, but he should at least just be honest about it.)

When the IFA invite a player between the ages of 17 and 21 into one of their teams, they're still asking that player to make an active or positive decision on his future career, so why would it necessarily be wrong for the FAI to invite a player to make an informed decision on playing for them? If O'Neill really wants to "protect" young players from the supposed nitty-gritty of international football allegiance because he thinks they're "too young/vulnerable" or whatever to be making big calls before the age of 21, he can always instruct his association not to place such players in positions where they will, due to being called up by the IFA, have to make a decision in the first place. Of course, it's a daft, unrealistic suggestion and I'm not suggesting it in seriousness, but it's the logical conclusion of his position and it exposes the disingenuousness of what he's saying because we know full well he would never advocate that.

Besides, as we know, the player makes the decision himself - it's not forced by the FAI - and, often, he'll have his family, friends and whoever else is important in his life help him make any such decision if that's something he wants to entertain and pursue. The player isn't being asked to switch by the FAI; that implies the exertion of undue pressure. He'll be facilitated if he makes it clear he'd like to switch. At "worst", he may be asked if he'd like to switch, or if he'd be interested in considering it, but he won't be asked to switch. On the part of the FAI, there's certainly no expectation, presumption or sense of obligation to switch imposed upon players.

It's worth mentioning also, as we know, that the FAI insist that they await contact from the player (or their family) first. We know that this was the case as far as players like Aaron McEneff and Rory Hale are concerned (as confirmed by Noel King and Hale himself), in spite of Michael O'Neill's accusations.

Although O'Neill claims to understand it, he seems to disparage the notion of players making a decision on an emotional basis, as if to suggest players who factor in their emotional attachment to Ireland have been somehow duped or easily led. If players want to make their decision on such a basis primarily - as was the case with players like James McClean or Shane Duffy - that's their call. It's their career; not Michael O'Neill's. It's none of his business what factors come into play for those making what is their own private decision. It's still a rational, informed decision. It's insulting to imply they might have been misled by their own identity and sensibilities. Indeed, plenty of players may be happier with winning just one cap for Ireland (or even with just having the opportunity to challenge for one coveted cap) than winning one hundred caps for NI because the reality is that they have absolutely no national, cultural or emotional attachment to NI.

Fundamentally, O'Neill seemingly misunderstands the purpose of the current FIFA rules on switching (but he's free to petition FIFA if he wishes; no point badgering the FAI and young northern-born Ireland players about it). He appears to think that imposing a restriction upon players switching until after they pass the age of 21 would protect young players, but this would have the very opposite effect. It would tie young players to associations, such as the IFA (who are ultimately looking out for their own interests rather than those of specific players), for a considerable period of time based on potentially undesirable decisions that were made immaturely or prematurely in a young player's life. This could restrict players' development or impinge upon their advancement. The rules as they stand are there to protect players, young and old, from self-interested (or potentially unscrupulous) associations. I suspect O'Neill is feigning concern for young players as an emotive pretext - "Won't somebody think of the children?!" - to disguise the fact that he's really just looking out for the interests of his own association.

If the players were O'Neill's real concern, he might mention how the senior international careers of the likes of Alex Bruce, Shane McEleney, Ryan Brobbel or Johnny Gorman hardly took off after they opted to switch from the FAI to the IFA, yet he never talks about them. Weird, that... :rolleyes:

Agree with you there. And what of the IFA fast tracking the likes of Duffy, Gorman and Shane Ferguson in their teens to the senior side? Really concerned about their ability to make a decision at a young age they were then...

So players shouldn't switch before 21 but he has a dig off Jordan McEneff and the Hales saying the coaches in the IFA put effort into coaching then and they should play for Ireland if they want to? http://m.independent.ie/sport/soccer...-35522480.html

He's so inconsistent is O'Neill. At least the message was consistent when it was a unionist like Nigel Worthington making the statements...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Michael O'Neill on Off the Ball

---

Thanks for that link. I can't disagree with much of what you, DI and others have said ;)

Michael's an intelligent guy and clearly doing well at the day job right now, but here's he's just doing the politician's thing of trying to please two opposed audiences at the same time. Put simply, many NI fans are annoyed when any local player declares for the South, so O'Neill feels he has to respond without actually slagging the FAI/ player/ his auntie Majella (apparently all you Catholics have one).

Of course it's hypocritical given all the examples mentioned (Alex Bruce etc.), and also because MON junior and senior obviously get on well, and our players like their training base in Dublin. Unlike Belfast, the hotel, training pitch and golf course are on the same complex, so the idle fcukers don't have get a bus or fully dressed to move from one to the other...

@ Gather Round

Are the Northern Ireland national team really based in Dublin for training?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

@ Gather Round

Are the Northern Ireland national team really based in Dublin for training?

---

Aye, I believe it's near the M50 southside. Rory McIlroy hangs out with them when he's playing or practising at K Club.

Another advantage is that Dublin Airport is an international hub- Aldergrove and Glentoran are sub-regional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

his auntie Majella (apparently all you Catholics have one).

---

I have an uncle Majella.

Perhaps I've said too much.

http://the42.ie/3328723

Not often an NI under 21 player is referred to as Irish and nice snippet on his GAA exploits.

McCartan was mentioned in this thread before I think. He had a tweet in support of the Irish national team, along with a few others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olé Olé

http://the42.ie/3328723

Not often an NI under 21 player is referred to as Irish and nice snippet on his GAA exploits.

McCartan was mentioned in this thread before I think. He had a tweet in support of the Irish national team, along with a few others.

---

There's a difference between playing for the IFA team and then being "Northern Irish". In this case I'm sure Mr Séamus McCartan might have mentioned something. :P

That being said, it is an Irish website, so they w(sh)ould know those subtleties.

Cape Verde want to make an as yet unreported change to FIFA eligibility rules according to the FIFA Congress agenda.

Quote:

---

14.4 Request to amend the provisions of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes regardingthe eligibility to play for representative teams (proposed by the Cape Verde Football Association)

---

Here's the whole "eligibility to play for representative teams" section from the April 2016 Statutes.

Quote:

---

7 Acquisition of a new nationality


Any player who refers to art. 5 par. 1 to assume a new nationality and who has not played international football in accordance with art. 5 par. 2 shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfils one of the
following conditions:


a) He was born on the territory of the relevant association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant association;
d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant association.


8 Change of association
1.
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.


b) He is not permitted to play for his new association in any competition in which he has already played for his previous association.


2.
If a player who has been fielded by his association in an international match in accordance with art. 5 par. 2 permanently loses the nationality of that country without his consent or against his will due to a decision by a government authority, he may request permission to play for another association whose nationality he already has or has acquired.


3.
Any player who has the right to change associations in accordance with par. 1 and 2 above shall submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat. The Players’ Status Committee shall decide on the request. The procedure will be in accordance with the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Once the player has filed his request, he is not eligible to play for any representative team until his request has been processed.

---

I wonder what it is they are trying to change. Unfortunately, most media coverage is focusing on USA wanting to bring the World Cup vote forward.


I imagine it is something to do with 7 d). As it stands, it would seem that players who became nationals before the age of 18 aren't truly catered for in the rules in the eyes of the FA, allowing Portugal to offer citizenship to promising Cape Verdean players before the age of 18 and the Portuguese FA selecting them in their national teams.


Just to clarify, I think:

Quote:

---

d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant association.

---

can be read as

Quote:

---

d) After reaching the age of 18, he has lived continuously for at least five years on the territory of the relevant association.

---

which would mean that the requirement to live in the nation the player wishes to play for, for five years only applies to those aged 18 and over.