Eligibility Rules, Okay

Very interesting Danny. Reading the last bolded part makes me wonder about the status of those born prior to 1922 in the years before this act of 1956. As far as I'm aware the 11 Northern born players who played for the FAI in the 30's and 40's were all born before 1922. I presume both associations just assumed they were Irish and eligible for their teams.

So were the 'missing years' of not selecting Northern born players anything to do with this act affecting the legality of these players citizenships.

We have the 11 players born before 1922 the last of whom played in 1946.

We have this 1956 act.

We then have english/scottish born players being selected in 1965/1967 - .

Kernaghan is presumably the next Northern born player to be selected. He was born in 1967.

Interesting stuff.

My own thoughts on why northern-born players suddenly decided to declare for the FAI around the mid-to-late 1990s (albeit in relatively small numbers on a yearly basis, and still so, to be honest) after no movement at all for the previous decades is as follows. Although I don't believe the Good Friday Agreement changed anything of legal substance as regards the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals to play for the FAI, I suspect its signing and the period of recognition, acceptance, reconciliation, sugar and spice and all things nice leading up to it (and since) may well have changed mindsets whereby nationalists realised or became more aware, confident, comfortable and in tune with the idea that they didn't actually have to play for a British entity if they didn't want to. Admittedly, that's just speculation on my part, but I'm attempting to understand and rationalise why switches weren't in greater number when you might have expected sectarian and political tensions to be more significant. A gentleman's agreement clearly wasn't the reason because it's pretty apparent that one didn't exist.

Likewise, with any potential accusations of irredentism finally off their backs and looking less and less valid as far as the international community or international law were concerned, the FAI could get on with being less reluctant to accept northern players (in saying that, I don't know if they turned down approaches prior to Kernaghan or the likes of Ger Crossley; maybe someone could shed light?), and possibly even offering it as a serious option without the fear of a political stir, or what might have been a much worse political stir than the one the switches have actually caused. And then, it appears, the IFA intervened in 1999 when Boyce and O'Byrne met where the FAI voluntarily agreed not to make contact with players unless they volunteered their intentions first, although awareness of the option open to northern-born Irish nationals clearly remained, and especially in Derry where - exceptions like James McClean aside - the general tendency appeared and appears to be for Derry City's Derry-born players to play for the FAI. When Gibson decided to switch and the IFA made such a hoo-ha about it, I feel they shot themselves in the foot by further publicising - or advertising even - an option open to Irish nationals in the north. Most people still seem to be of the impression that Gibson was the first NI-born player to play for the FAI in modern times, which goes to show how little awareness of northern-born players playing for Ireland there was before the IFA kicked up the storm. The brouhaha has also had the effect of alienating nationalists, which has only driven them further away from the IFA and closer to the FAI. It has made the IFA appear hostile to nationalist interests expressions of identity. The real mystery is what possessed the IFA to believe the rules as they currently stand applied any differently to how they had done when they'd received clarification from FIFA in 1994 and acknowledged the right of northern-born Irish nationals to declare for the FAI in 1999.

I read on a forum, so not sure of its veracity, that Neil Lennon would rather have played for the south had he, in his own words, had the choice. He obviously did have a choice as he began playing for NI around the same time as Kernaghan declared for us, to the best of my knowledge. Clearly, however, if the above is true, he was not in the know or made aware of the option open to him. I've read similar talk about Pat Jennings.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, speculation, conjecture or whatever you want to call it, but it's an attempt at an explanation anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

1946 according to the documents filed to the CAS. The FAI requested from FIFA that players born in the South could not be selected for any other association.
That is the 'stated policy' as referred to on the FAI's website, with which there was one exception for the Iberian tour.
But the 'FAI has never accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its representative teams, whether they were living in Northern Ireland or elsewhere'

It's not so complicated, is it ?

---

But whose stated policy was it? The FAI's or the IFA's? According to CAS, as you mention, FIFA issued two dictats around 1950 only effective upon the IFA as regards confining player selection to their own territory.

I don't understand how the FAI selecting northern-born players for the Iberian tour goes against a "policy" of theirs that apparently stated that players from the south could not play for any other country. The two aren't related, are they? Am I missing something or has this just turned my head into mush? :confused:

Unrelated somewhat, this, but can anyone confirm if Mauro Camoranesi qualified to play for Italy through Italy-born grandparents or an Italy-born great-grandparent, as his Wikipedia states? It could have interesting implications for the application and interpretation of article 15. There's a guy here claiming that the great-grandparent claim isn't actually true in response to a question I asked in order to provoke further discussion: http://socqer.com/questions/553/unde...lay-for-italy/

My thinking is that if Camoranesi qualified by virtue of a great-grandfather, then he must have qualified via article 15 as he would not otherwise satisfy the sub-criteria of article 17. This, in turn, would surely imply that article 15 could be interpreted as a "granny rule" or even a "great-granny rule", maybe leaving open a possibility of, say, third, fourth or fifth generation Irish players being eligible to play for Ireland just so long as their citizenship was inherited along the lineage in line with the procedural requirements of Irish nationality law.

You were mentioned here Danny:
http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/07/01/...y-hostilities/

Also, a commenter, Boycethevoice, linked to the GS version here:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-16018801.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

But whose stated policy was it? The FAI's or the IFA's? According to CAS, as you mention, FIFA issued two dictats around 1950 only effective upon the IFA as regards confining player selection to their own territory.

---

The author on the FAI site wrote that the FAI went against their stated policy and selected 4 from the North for their Iberian tour in 1948?.
By that, we take it that the author interpreted the FAI request to FIFA in 1946 as a stated policy.
But the FAI did not have a stated policy. The author got things slightly awry.
That's not a big deal is it?

The FAI's submission to the CAS on the matter is clear and consistent with FAI actions through that period and directly upheld with the CAS reference to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlaskaFox

You were mentioned here Danny:
http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/07/01/...y-hostilities/

---

The comment is "well worth the read"
Which means - it's a real read but worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

The author on the FAI site wrote that the FAI went against their stated policy and selected 4 from the North for their Iberian tour in 1948?.
By that, we take it that the author interpreted the FAI request to FIFA in 1946 as a stated policy.
But the FAI did not have a stated policy. The author got things slightly awry.
That's not a big deal is it?

---

I see, 'tis an error in interpretation then from whoever edited the history section? Not a big deal. It just puzzled me as it didn't add up with what CAS found. You'd think someone would correct it.

From that Slugger blog
'This news has been apparently confirmed by the BBC tonight, indicating that Nigel Worthington and the IFA have effectively signalled the end of hostilities regarding the eligibility affair. The IFA were already facing the charge of hypocrisy regarding their opposition to northerners opting to leave the IFA structures to represent the Republic of Ireland'.
The IFA have decommissioned dogma and hypocrisy?
This is a cunning cover-up.
I want independent confirmation. Set up an Independent Monitoring Commission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

You'd think someone would correct it.

---

Yes Danny, we all know you're that man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

My thinking is that if Camoranesi qualified by virtue of a great-grandfather, then he must have qualified via article 15 as he would not otherwise satisfy the sub-criteria of article 17. This, in turn, would surely imply that article 15 could be interpreted as a "granny rule" or even a "great-granny rule", maybe leaving open a possibility of, say, third, fourth or fifth generation Irish players being eligible to play for Ireland just so long as their citizenship was inherited along the lineage in line with the procedural requirements of Irish nationality law.

---

I don't know about Camoranesi specifically but I know from Italian-American friends that Italian citizenship is even more accessible than ours. You can get citizenship from as far back as a great-grandparent having citizenship (as opposed to being born there).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar

Alex Bruce has switched to NI and good luck to him.

---

That's not how some of the North's fans see it....judging by some of the negative stuff posted on forums.
But difficult to link to, unless you're actually a member.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I read on a forum, so not sure of its veracity, that Neil Lennon would rather have played for the south had he, in his own words, had the choice. He obviously did have a choice as he began playing for NI around the same time as Kernaghan declared for us, to the best of my knowledge. Clearly, however, if the above is true, he was not in the know or made aware of the option open to him. I've read similar talk about Pat Jennings.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, speculation, conjecture or whatever you want to call it, but it's an attempt at an explanation anyway.

---

Having read the odd tome on Lennon and having talked to his cousin, despite his heritage and where he was brought up, at that time in his career as he had been in the minds of the IFA youth and had experienced their junior set-up was why he eventually why he went onto play for the North.

But became a focus for dissent from some of their more extreme fans and his eventual international retirement came, once he moved to Celtic.
So no change there?

We can only surmise how he and Jennings and others might have reacted now....
The door is thankfully more open than it was even a decade ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Unrelated somewhat, this, but can anyone confirm if Mauro Camoranesi qualified to play for Italy through Italy-born grandparents or an Italy-born great-grandparent, as his Wikipedia states? It could have interesting implications for the application and interpretation of article 15. There's a guy here claiming that the great-grandparent claim isn't actually true in response to a question I asked in order to provoke further discussion: http://socqer.com/questions/553/unde...lay-for-italy/
My thinking is that if Camoranesi qualified by virtue of a great-grandfather, then he must have qualified via article 15 as he would not otherwise satisfy the sub-criteria of article 17. This, in turn, would surely imply that article 15 could be interpreted as a "granny rule" or even a "great-granny rule", maybe leaving open a possibility of, say, third, fourth or fifth generation Irish players being eligible to play for Ireland just so long as their citizenship was inherited along the lineage in line with the procedural requirements of Irish nationality law.

---

Camoranesi qualified for Italy under the rules of eligibility that existed at that time.
He even would have qualified under the Annex addendum 901 that came into existence some 6 months after he declared for Italy, under the 2 year residency criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Camoranesi qualified for Italy under the rules of eligibility that existed at that time.
He even would have qualified under the Annex addendum 901 that came into existence some 6 months after he declared for Italy, under the 2 year residency criteria.

---

I'd imagine Camoranesi would still have qualified under the current rules, however, regardless of whether or not he'd spent any time residing in Italy. I'm basing this supposition on the example of Thiago Motta. Motta is another oriondo who declared for Italy earlier this year, after having played for Brazil below senior level earlier in his career. He is reported to have qualified via an Italian great-grandfather. Motta was apparently born in Brazil to Brazil-born parents of Brazil-born parents themselves (although I see some sources claim he had an Italian paternal grandparent, whilst his Wikipedia - not fully sourced - claims he had Italian grandparents on both his maternal and paternal sides). A few sources mention what appears to be a very specific story (thus, more likely to be the accurate version, perhaps?) about how his Italian citizenship was inherited from an Italian great-grandfather, Fortunato Fogagnolo, who had emigrated to Brazil from Italy in 1897. Under the current rules, Motta would not have qualified via the current 5-year residency criterion as he only moved to Genoa in 2008, so if he indeed qualified through this great-grandfather, it would presumably leave article 15 open to being interpreted as a "granny rule", or a "great-granny rule" even, as article 17 makes no provision for any player qualifying via a generation beyond grand-parentage.

As for that "odd" bit on the FAI's history webpage, I'm thinking it might actually be entirely correct after all having had a better think about it and considering everything. Irish citizenship, as offered by the Irish state, only became available extra-territorially to those born outside of Ireland to Irish citizens and those born in the north since 1956 after the passing of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (not that the passing of this legislation had anything to do with the footballing situation on the island, à la what happened in Qatar; FIFA have had over half a century to counteract its effect besides if they did actually have an issue with it). If the FAI had, at any date prior to this, accepted that the association's jurisdiction did not include the whole of the island, which, of course, it did in 1950 (or possibly as far back as 1946?), it meant that it was accepting that players born in the IFA's jurisdiction were, for then, off-limits to its selection. Of course, that's not to say that the future status of Irish nationals, regardless of where they were born, was ever discussed or ruled upon by anyone. Once those in the north would have become entitled to Irish citizenship in 1956, they'd have been entitled as "subjects of the country they represent" (as per the then-"Art. 21 al. 2 of the Regulations of the F.I.F.A.", as outlined by the FIFA General Secretary, Ivo Shricker, on the 18th of October, 1946 and quoted by CAS) to play for the FAI so long as they effected their right to citizenship, regardless of whether they were born outside the FAI's territory or not. I feel this would be consistent with the wording of the text on the FAI's history webpage and the wording of the association's submission to CAS. Ultimately, it doesn't make any difference to the current situation as it would also be consistent with the findings of CAS, but it just clarifies things somewhat or clears things up in my own mind at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

If it's referring to the FAI, then when did they state a policy of confining selection to just players born in the Republic? And wouldn't that have implicitly ruled out northern-born Irish nationals from lining out for the FAI?

---

The FAI was founded as an All-Ireland Association but was admitted to FIFA in the 1920's as the FAIFS (Football Association of the Irish Free State). A condition of entry to FIFA was that the FAIFS confine its activities to the Free State. For example the Falls District League was affiliated to the FAI but once the FAI was admitted to FIFA as the FAIFS the Falls District League came under the "authority" of the IFA.

In the mid 1930's the FAIFS reverted back to its original name of the FAI and reverted back to its original brief as an All-Ireland Association.

The sentence you highlight from the FAI's history section is inaccurate as (a) there was no Republic at the time and (b) the change in selection policy is very much explainable as the FAIFS was no more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I'd imagine Camoranesi would still have qualified under the current rules, however, regardless of whether or not he'd spent any time residing in Italy. I'm basing this supposition on the example of Thiago Motta. Motta is another oriondo who declared for Italy earlier this year, after having played for Brazil below senior level earlier in his career. He is reported to have qualified via an Italian great-grandfather. Motta was apparently born in Brazil to Brazil-born parents of Brazil-born parents themselves (although I see some sources claim he had an Italian paternal grandparent, whilst his Wikipedia - not fully sourced - claims he had Italian grandparents on both his maternal and paternal sides). A few sources mention what appears to be a very specific story (thus, more likely to be the accurate version, perhaps?) about how his Italian citizenship was inherited from an Italian great-grandfather, Fortunato Fogagnolo, who had emigrated to Brazil from Italy in 1897. Under the current rules, Motta would not have qualified via the current 5-year residency criterion as he only moved to Genoa in 2008, so if he indeed qualified through this great-grandfather, it would presumably leave article 15 open to being interpreted as a "granny rule", or a "great-granny rule" even, as article 17 makes no provision for any player qualifying via a generation beyond grand-parentage.

---

Then you should have just asked about Motta :)

It's reported that Motta has always held Italian citizenship and UEFA report that he has an Italian grandfather. The grandfather link means he is article 17 compliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

The FAI was founded as an All-Ireland Association but was admitted to FIFA in the 1920's as the FAIFS (Football Association of the Irish Free State). A condition of entry to FIFA was that the FAIFS confine its activities to the Free State. For example the Falls District League was affiliated to the FAI but once the FAI was admitted to FIFA as the FAIFS the Falls District League came under the "authority" of the IFA.

In the mid 1930's the FAIFS reverted back to its original name of the FAI and reverted back to its original brief as an All-Ireland Association.

The sentence you highlight from the FAI's history section is inaccurate as (a) there was no Republic at the time and (b) the change in selection policy is very much explainable as the FAIFS was no more.

---

I'm aware the FAI split from the IFA in order to replace it as an all-island body rather than merely act as an off-shoot in governing football in the newly-established Irish Free State. Bunreacht na hÉireann would have replaced the 1922 Constitution of Saorstát Eireann in 1937 and the FAI readopted its current name in 1936 in anticipation of the state's name-change. The state was formally recognised as a republic (in description rather than title; the official name of the state remains Ireland in English, despite what many seem to believe) in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 that came into force in early 1949. After the IFA joined FIFA in 1946, is it more or less correct to say that the FAI accepted its jurisdiction as the 26-county state that would be formally acknowledged as a republic in 1949? In other words, is there anything in my above analysis which you'd dispute or with which you'd take issue bar not having corrected the FAI's premature reference to "the Republic"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Then you should have just asked about Motta :)

It's reported that Motta has always held Italian citizenship and UEFA report that he has an Italian grandfather. The grandfather link means he is article 17 compliant.

---

Ha, indeed. I only came across the example of Motta since I discussed Camoranesi. I wonder is this Fogagnolo actually a grandparent then, although his dates would suggest not as they place about 85 years between him being 20 in 1897 and Motta being born in 1982, which seems like an awful lot of time. Either he or Motta's own father, or both even, must have been exceptionally old when their next generation came along. Ultimately, Motta doesn't really provide any conclusion either though, or can we still assume that those born outside of Italy whose only link is an Italian-born great-grandparent would actually qualify under article 15?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

From my experience on OWC, that chap comes across as very irreconcilable. I think he was partly behind that ludicrous 'Open Letter' and petition campaign. His comments on your article are petty and childish - his first criticism was against the format of the greenscene article, because, well, he obviously had nothing important to say about the content. How could he?

---

I see another poster called 'the_hawk' has similar to say in response to a previous poster's suggestion that someone try and compile a response to at least some of the points I've raised:

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.

---

Maybe a more fitting username would be 'the_osterich'.

http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/ima...ad-in-sand.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Ultimately, Motta doesn't really provide any conclusion either though

---

Yep, you need evidence for some conclusion.

Quote:

---

or can we still assume that those born outside of Italy whose only link is an Italian-born great-grandparent would actually qualify under article 15?

---

It would be irrational to assume that the theory is true when there is no evidence to support it.

That response by the_hawk beggars belief. It's actually upsetting that someone could think like that.

I appeal to OWC users here such as NB and/or GR to put him right on behalf of all sane individuals with an interest in the topic. It is anything but ill-informed rambling deserving of contempt. I'm sure Danny will be the first to admit any inaccuracy if any was confirmed, and he'd be very happy to respond to any suspicion of inaccuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Yep, you need evidence for some conclusion.

It would be irrational to assume that the theory is true when there is no evidence to support it.

---

That's true, although having had a semi-cursory look at the nature of Italian nationality law in relation those who acquire it through jure sanguinis, it would seem to amount to a permanent nationality not dependent on residence just so long as all ancestors along the lineage never renounced their respective rights to Italian citizenship. That would imply it is a birthright, possibly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

That response by the_hawk beggars belief. It's actually upsetting that someone could think like that.

I appeal to OWC users here such as NB and/or GR to put him right on behalf of all sane individuals with an interest in the topic. It is anything but ill-informed rambling deserving of contempt. I'm sure Danny will be the first to admit any inaccuracy if any was confirmed, and he'd be very happy to respond to any suspicion of inaccuracy.

---

I agree, but that would subtract from the farcical element. Where's EalingGreen gone?