Eligibility Rules, Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Fair enough, but your answer to 1. puzzles me.

---

Nothing too puzzling about it - the essence of a good discussion board is diversity of opinion. I disagree with my fellow fans on lots of issues pertaining to the Northern Ireland team. I agree with them on lots of issues too You disagree with your fellow fans on lots of issues pertaining to the ROI team, and agree with them on lots of issues too.

Such is the basis for discussion and debate, based on one's opinions.

None of that is the reason why I don't post on OWC any longer - For now, I prefer expressing my opinions on salient issues, and having them challenged, on other discussion forums. That's all really.

Can see where you're coming from. Having witnessed it, would suspect 'arguing' with most of the other crowd isn't too much fun at times.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Can see where you're coming from. Having witnessed it, would suspect 'arguing' with most of the other crowd isn't too much fun at times.....

---

I think it's one thing to "argue" with eye's open.

Quite another to "argue" with eyes shut, and an unwillingness and/or inability to open them.

It's easier for some to shoot the messenger, rather than deal with the realities of the message.

Get my drift?

Heh, exactly. On this we understand each other!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

If fourth-generation Italians are able to represent Italy (not that I'm necessarily saying they can, because both the Camoranesi and Motta examples have proved inconclusive), then we could conclude that article 15 might be more flexible than we might originally have thought as that would be the only article under which such examples possibly could qualify. It could potentially leave open the possibility of fourth-generation Irish nationals being eligible to represent Ireland.

---

It would be generous to say you are hypothesising because you have absolutely no evidence to start with.
4th generation Italians (born abroad but descendant from an Italian great grandparent) can become Italian nationals but they don't qualify for Italy under FIFA's rules, unless they fulfill the residency requirements of art 17.

Quote:

---

Am I correct in assuming that anyone who assumes a nationality before the age of 18 can qualify for the association of that country? The rules don't specify such, but it would appear to be the case with regard to a lot of Switzerland's current internationals, for example, and I remember CD saying something along those lines earlier in the thread, stating that it was implicit due to the "after reaching the age of 18" clause in article 17.

---

I think you are looking for comfort zone where there is an absolute certainty.
I'm more used to uncertainty, accepting what is evident now and keeping an open mind to some degree.
Article 15 isn't an exact mathematical calculation of eligibity.
But you can take it that if a family move to a new country/a kid grows up in that country, becomes a naturalised citizen, he then qualifies to play for that country under article 15. I'd agree with Charlie that 18 years is the implied age limit, after which a player who moves to another country, then has to satisfy the terms of article 17 in order to play for that new country.


Here is a question.
A capped player at underage level has dual nationality, Brazil & Italian. But had acquired the 2nd nationality (Italian) due to 4th generation rights.
Lets say he was capped for Brazil at underage level and now wants to declare for Italy under the terms of article 18.
Is there anything in article 18 to say he can't declare for Italy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

It would be generous to say you are hypothesising because you have absolutely no evidence to start with.

---

No dispute there. FIFA eligibility legislation is our oyster. :)

Quote:

---

4th generation Italians (born abroad but descendant from an Italian great grandparent) can become Italian nationals but they don't qualify for Italy under FIFA's rules, unless they fulfill the residency requirements of art 17.

---

How can you be certain of this? Lack of evidence doesn't necessarily negate the possibility surely?

Quote:

---

Here is a question.
A capped player at underage level has dual nationality, Brazil & Italian. But had acquired the 2nd nationality (Italian) due to 4th generation rights.
Lets say he was capped for Brazil at underage level and now wants to declare for Italy under the terms of article 18.
Is there anything in article 18 to say he can't declare for Italy?

---

That is to presuppose that he can indeed play for Italy in light of his fourth-generation citizenship. Anyway, article 18 says:

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.

I think the highlighted bit is possibly relevant to your question? I believe it was the clause that put the spanner in the works as regards Mikel Arteta's possible eligibility to play for England as he'd represented Spain at youth level whilst not yet in possession of British nationality.

Just to use the example of Motta, his Italian citizenship is derived from a grandfather, according to UEFA at least, although other sources say it's derived from a great-grandfather and go as far to give the actual name, age and year of arrival in Brazil of this apparent great-grandfather. It is my understanding that his Italian citizenship facilitated his move to Europe when he first signed for Barcelona. To later play for Italy, he must also have held his Italian nationality anyway at the time of representing Brazil at under-17 and under-23 levels. Does that provide any enlightenment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

Not necessarily. The FAI sought to make players born within its jurisdictation ineligible to represent the IFA "for international purposes" (letter to FIFA 1946). What constituted the FAI's and the IFA's jurisdictation wasn't clearly defined before FIFA's intervention in 1953. For example the IFA selected players on an All-Ireland basis during this time period (1946 - 1953). However FIFA did state to the FAI in 1946 that (for international purposes) "players must be subjects of the country they represent" and "players born in the area of your jurisdiction" could not represent the IFA.

---

I think you've the dates slightly mixed up. It was by the dictat issued in April of 1951 that the IFA stopped selecting Irish citizens, although I don't think they'd actually selected an Irish citizen after their British Home Championship game with Wales in March of 1950. Tom Aherne, Reg Ryan, Davy Walsh and the captain Con Martin were the last Irish citizens to play for the IFA at the time. As a consequence, the FAI began pressuring UK-based Irish citizens to sign an undertaking not to play for the IFA. Jackie Carey was the last to comply with this in April of 1950, I believe. The IFA complained to FIFA about this practice, and although FIFA ruled that the FAI's actions were not legitimate, it also made clear to the IFA that it was in no position to be selecting "citizens of Éire" anyway, even for "Home Nations" games if the FAI objected. Of course, the FAI did object.

The 1953 agreement wasn't related to player eligibility for either association nor did it relate to the jurisdiction of either association, to my knowledge anyway. It merely related to what you might call naming rights, as both teams were still competing in FIFA competition under the name "Ireland", even though the boundary on jurisdictions had already been set in 1946 for FIFA competition (although, for the IFA, this didn't extend to "Home Nations" games until 1951).

From Wikipedia (referenced):

At FIFA's 1953 congress, its Rule 3 was amended so that an international team must use "that title ... recognised politically and geographically of the countries or territories". The FAI initially claimed Rule 3 gave them the right to the name Ireland, but FIFA subsequently ruled neither team could be referred to as Ireland, decreeing that the FAI team be officially designated as the Republic of Ireland, while the IFA team was to become Northern Ireland. The IFA objected and in 1954 was permitted to continue using the name Ireland in Home Internationals, based on the 1923 agreement. This practice was discontinued in the late 1970s.

I think it's fair to assume that the FAI had acknowledged their governing jurisdiction was limited to the Irish state by the end of 1946 at least, in compliance with FIFA regulations on the matter. That's not to say they acknowledged anything with relation to the future status of Irish citizens born anywhere in the world outside their jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

The FAI's understanding of eligibility was most likely based on "place of birth" (1946 FIFA letter) an understanding reinforced by the 1953 FIFA intervention which divided the island's existing playing pool based on place of birth.

---

The 1946 letter from Ivo Schricker actually referred expressly to "subjects" rather than place of birth. The letter read:

Art. 21 al. 2 of the Regulations of the F.I.F.A. (…) reads as follows:

“The players (NB. of International Matches) must be selected by the National Associations concerned and be subjects of the country they represent”

In light of this, there was no reason for the FAI to believe that the "players born in [the FAI's] jurisdiction" clause relevant to limiting the IFA's selection policy was relevant to them, but it appears they may well have assumed, erroneously, that it invoked a territorial test. Of course, as you suggest in your last paragraph, it's still entirely possible that the FAI had been misinterpreting the rules for about half a century or just never really investigated the true scope of their rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

How can you be certain of this? Lack of evidence doesn't necessarily negate the possibility surely?

---

Not just a lack of evidence but a complete lack of evidence.
Anyway it's just a certainty derived from the FIFA rules, their interpretation and practice of those rules. Should something change with their practice then the certainty will be in some doubt :)


Back to the question

Quote:

---

article 18 says:

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......:

---

I think there is something missing in there which I have inserted in bold
'request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country for which he is eligibile to play for'
I think the bit in bold is assumed by FIFA and taken for granted.

Quote:

---

Just to use the example of Motta, his Italian citizenship is derived from a grandfather, according to UEFA at least, although other sources say it's derived from a great-grandfather and go as far to give the actual name, age and year of arrival in Brazil of this apparent great-grandfather. It is my understanding that his Italian citizenship facilitated his move to Europe when he first signed for Barcelona. To later play for Italy, he must also have held his Italian nationality anyway at the time of representing Brazil at under-17 and under-23 levels. Does that provide any enlightenment?

---

To my mind it is not clear what FIFA mean by ' an international match in an official competition for his current Association,'
I understand that to mean, only Qualification games/Finals for the Euros etc and World Cup, at underage level.
Most all 2nd generation, have the dual nationality at birth so article 18 poses no difficulties, eg Ciaran Clark.
Has their been an example of a 3rd generation player whose request to transfer associations was rejected by FIFA because he acquired the 2nd nationality after appearing for his first association in an official competition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

To my mind it is not clear what FIFA mean by ' an international match in an official competition for his current Association,'
I understand that to mean, only Qualification games/Finals for the Euros etc and World Cup, at underage level.

---

I would interpret that in the same way. Would it be fair to use Tony Kane as an example? He played for NI at under-age (presumably competitively in at least one fixture as the statement on his Wiki references a link to an albeit-no-longer-existing page on the UEFA site, but it's probably fair to assume it once contained info on his NI appearances in UEFA competition) before "switching" to the FAI and playing in under-age friendlies for Ireland. If he'd played in a competitive game at any level for us, however, this would have effected his one switch and would have disabled the possibility of him returning to the IFA. As it was, he didn't play for us competitively and "switched back" to the IFA, even though the rules expressly permit only one switch of association, so clearly, friendlies such as the Madeira Cup, in which Kane played, don't count as official competition, at least.

Quote:

---

Has their been an example of a 3rd generation player whose request to transfer associations was rejected by FIFA because he acquired the 2nd nationality after appearing for his first association in an official competition?

---

I'm trying to think, but not aware of any off the top of my head. Possibly Kevin Nolan as he announced in the media that he wasn't actually eligible for us last year, although I remember the supposed reason he gave didn't provide much clarity as to why at the time. Not sure exactly what he said now and I can't find the exact story. He spoke of being a generation out or something, but, as far as I'd been aware, his grandfather had been Irish.

On the other hand, are there any third generation players in the Irish context whose request to transfer has been accepted after appearing for an original association in an official competition?

Nolan couldn't obtain Irish Nationality because none from the 4 grandparents were born in Ireland.
Probably his great grandparent was Irish born.

Are you sure?
Had been told both his parents from The Pale but sounds wrong now I'm writing?

His parents certainly weren't Irish-born. He'd have qualified unquestionably then as he'd be an automatic national from birth. Nolan has Dutch roots as well, for what it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Are you sure?
Had been told both his parents from The Pale but sounds wrong now I'm writing?

---

Doubt this, it was more tenuous than that as far as I remember.

According to this link, almost a decade old, he was 'eligible' at some point?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...an-663574.html

If that was the case, he'd be eligible again since the age cap of 21 years after which a player would be tied to an association he represented was abolished by FIFA, unless, of course, he did apply for Irish citizenship in recent years and acquired it but was adjudged by FIFA not to have possessed it at the time he'd played for the FA.

The media is terribly unreliable when it comes to this sort of thing though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I think you've the dates slightly mixed up....................

---

Danny,

I had a longer response prepared but technical issues deleted it. :)

But briefly consider how the FAI viewed the IFA's entry to FIFA in 1946 and what perceived implications it had for the FAI. Remember the IFA considered itself the association for the island, was backed by the other British associations and sat on the international board. In this context the FAI was seeking in 1946 to confine the scope of the IFA to NI to ensure the validity of its existence. The FAI had previously shown a willingness to confine itself to the then Irish Free State to validate its existence (FAIFS) but ultimate desire to operate as an All-Ireland association (see immediate early years after formation and the period 1936 -1946). By seeking to confine the IFA to NI, the FAI wasn't necessarily accepting that its scope was 26 counties but rather accepting a co-existence with the IFA as a means to ensure its existence.

FIFA's intervention regarding player eligibility related to FIFA regulated competition - hence the 1953 date. Player selection in non-FIFA regulated games was a matter to be resolved between the FAI and the IFA.

The 1946 correspondence between the FAI and FIFA was focused on the issue of place of birth. The FAI's letter to FIFA concentrated on this issue and while FIFA's response stated "subjects of the country they represent" it does specifically response to answering the FAI direct question on place of birth as the determinant of eligibility in the Irish context.

As to why the FAI did not select NI born players for X amount of years, they are a number of factors to consider; the status of the FAI in relation to the IFA, how the FAI was run (pretty much by volunteers up until the mid 1980's), the player selection process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

Danny,

I had a longer response prepared but technical issues deleted it. :)

But briefly consider how the FAI viewed the IFA's entry to FIFA in 1946 and what perceived implications it had for the FAI. Remember the IFA considered itself the association for the island, was backed by the other British associations and sat on the international board. In this context the FAI was seeking in 1946 to confine the scope of the IFA to NI to ensure the validity of its existence. The FAI had previously shown a willingness to confine itself to the then Irish Free State to validate its existence (FAIFS) but ultimate desire to operate as an All-Ireland association (see immediate early years after formation and the period 1936 -1946). By seeking to confine the IFA to NI, the FAI wasn't necessarily accepting that its scope was 26 counties but rather accepting a co-existence with the IFA as a means to ensure its existence.

---

OK, I get that.

However...

Quote:

---

FIFA's intervention regarding player eligibility related to FIFA regulated competition - hence the 1953 date. Player selection in non-FIFA regulated games was a matter to be resolved between the FAI and the IFA.

---

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here fully. Are you saying that there was still something to be distinguished by 1953 (and even after) other than the two associations using a common team name? And what were the correspondences of 1946 and 1951 if not dictats clarifying and finalising jurisdiction and player eligibility at the time?

Is the following timeline giving a brief overview, to my understanding, of the various developments around the time incorrect somewhere?:

1946: In essence, the FAI requests FIFA to formally acknowledge its exclusive jurisdiction by confirming that players born within the 26 counties cannot be selected by the IFA. FIFA responds by acknowledging the exclusive jurisdiction and outlines the rules for FIFA-sanctioned competition, pointing out that players must be "subjects" of the country they're representing.
1946-1950: As the IFA refuses to accept that the 1946 dictat limiting their selection of Irish citizens applies to "Home Nations" games, they continue to select players from the FAI's jurisdiction for such games. As a consequence, the FAI asks its players to sign an undertaking not to play for the IFA.
1951: The IFA complains to FIFA about the FAI demanding this of its players and FIFA responds by confirming it is not in line with their rules but that the IFA can no longer select "citizens of Éire" in even "Home Nations" games, unless the FAI was to offer no objection. As the FAI objected to the practice, the effect was to extend the effect of the 1946 dictat from FIFA-sanctioned competition alone to "Home Nations" games.
1953: As both teams are still using "Ireland" as a team name, FIFA distinguishes by designating the IFA team as "Northern Ireland" and the FAI team as the "Republic of Ireland".

Edit: I meant to add that the 1946 dictat had the effect of basing eligibility on place of birth for the meantime as neither jus soli nor jus sanguinis extra-territorial Irish citizenship had yet been established into Irish law by that point. That came into effect in 1956 with the passing of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here fully. Are you saying that there was still something to be distinguished by 1953 (and even after) other than the two associations using a common team name? And what were the correspondences of 1946 and 1951 if not dictats clarifying and finalising jurisdiction and player eligibility at the time?

---

There are indications that FIFA was a reluctant intermediator in the "dispute" between the FAI and the IFA. Despite the 1946 correspondences the IFA continued to select players on an All-Ireland basis as FIFA distanced itself from the workings of the Home Championship which was now doubling as a WC qualifier group. This effectively stopped with the 1951 correspondences but FIFA left the door opened for the issue to resolved between the FAI and the IFA when stating an allowance in the eligibility rules for the Home Internationals not regulated as FIFA competition. This is likely where the idea of a gentleman's agreement comes from as FIFA was keen to encourage agreement reached by and between the FAI and the IFA. While you are correct that the 1953 intervention was to resolve the team name issue, it also has significance as an acceptance of the current (1950s) scope of each association's jurisdiction based on the political border. The significance of 1953 from the FAI's point of view was an acceptance by the IFA its existence and the validity of existence (although you can argue that this was already effectively achieved in 1951).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Is the following timeline giving a brief overview, to my understanding, of the various developments around the time incorrect somewhere?:
1946: In essence, the FAI requests FIFA to formally acknowledge its exclusive jurisdiction by confirming that players born within the 26 counties cannot be selected by the IFA. FIFA responds by acknowledging the exclusive jurisdiction and outlines the rules for FIFA-sanctioned competition, pointing out that players must be "subjects" of the country they're representing.
1946-1950: As the IFA refuses to accept that the 1946 dictat limiting their selection of Irish citizens applies to "Home Nations" games, they continue to select players from the FAI's jurisdiction for such games. As a consequence, the FAI asks its players to sign an undertaking not to play for the IFA.
1951: The IFA complains to FIFA about the FAI demanding this of its players and FIFA responds by confirming it is not in line with their rules but that the IFA can no longer select "citizens of Éire" in even "Home Nations" games, unless the FAI was to offer no objection. As the FAI objected to the practice, the effect was to extend the effect of the 1946 dictat from FIFA-sanctioned competition alone to "Home Nations" games.
1953: As both teams are still using "Ireland" as a team name, FIFA distinguishes by designating the IFA team as "Northern Ireland" and the FAI team as the "Republic of Ireland".

---

Basically correct. Should be pointed out the FAI "lobbied" FIFA to enforce the understanding of the 1946 correspondence in the period 1946 - 1951. FIFA was reluctant to do so. The FAI took matters into their own hands by asking players to sign an undertaking not to play for the IFA. This brought about the 1951 FIFA correspondence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Are you sure?
Had been told both his parents from The Pale but sounds wrong now I'm writing?

---

Well I am sure that the information I provided about Nolan has been reported and ever since it has stood the test of time.
Nolan considered Ireland

"The possibility of playing for Ireland has been brought up a number of times but unfortunately my grandad and my nans are only a quarter Irish, or half Irish, and they need to be fully Irish!"

He was capped for England in an u18 qualifier, so it would have been interesting - if he had a 100% Irish born Grandparent, would he still have been eligible to declare for Ireland under article 18?

Hmm.
I'll go with the Eng.Indy version, but irrelevant now.