Quote:
Originally Posted by
Charlie Darwin
geysir or DI could correct me, but by the letter of the law merely making the request, as he has, should tie him to England. Certainly as soon as he "consummates" the switch that would be that.
There are cases, such as Bobby Zamora, where the request appears to have been made but didn't bind the player. I'm not sure if that's just down to an oversight on FIFA's part or if the paperwork was never submitted, or if they only enforce it when a player is capped.
Whatever about the media reports, Bobby Zamora's "request", if even he made one, was never actually formally processed, according to Yann, who has access to FIFA's database. Yann felt it is probably the first competitive international appearance after a switch that ties a player to his new association and not the request to switch itself, although there was no evidence of any players having switched back and the letter of the law would appear to say otherwise. He was to seek confirmation of this from the head of the PSC when they were to meet and I had gotten back to him twice about this before, but unfortunately no update.
Quote:
The database contains the name of the player and the association requesting the change of allegiance and the name of the association he represented so far. Then, the database contains the date where the change has been approved/denied by the FIFA Player’s Status Committee. Article 8.3 is clear – the player is no longer deemed eligible until he has been cleared by FIFA. If Zamora had requested a change, he would have appeared in the database at some point. The only exception being (in my opinion) – if he only had played in friendlies, which is not the case. I am not aware of the case of players who have been allowed to switch back.
And his thoughts on what effected a switch (my questions are in bold):
Quote:
We had thought of Zamora as somewhat of a "test case" proving that a simple request alone was not enough to effect the switch, thinking he'd requested a switch but was allowed to play for England again on the basis of not having effected it, but you say this is not so. Why do you think that playing in a competitive game is what effects a change then, even though this wouldn't be in line with a literal reading of the regulation concerned? Are you of the opinion then that a player might be permitted to return if he's not represented his new association competitively after having already had his request formally approved? Can an association losing a player hold up or stall a switch by any means, refusing to comply or dragging their heels until threatened with penalty?
This issue refers to the election a sporting nationality. This is done solely by entering the field in a competitive match (article 5.2). In my opinion (and it is solely my opinion), one must distinguish the substantive conditions (art. 8.1(a) or 8.2) to change national affiliation from the formal process to do so (art. 8.3). Being allowed to change national affiliation only once is a substantive condition, ie the player must not have undergone another switch before, and not a formal one. Thus, a player can be deemed tied to his new association and the process to switch association complete only if he meet the stipulation of article 5.2.
The former association could refuse to deliver relevant documents but it has no power to veto the change in association. The process will take a little bit longer.
