Quote:
Originally Posted by
Not Brazil
It would appear that those propogating that the boycott was because of player "nicking" haven't managed to get their message across to the media yet.
They're still spinning I see, and, to my surprise, without even a hint of embarrassment or subtlety:
"The rest of us just need to spin this boycott to the issue of player poaching."
"Therefore, putting a spin on the boycott (as you suggest) and upping the ante, with regards to manifesting our disgust at the IFA's passive attitude towards FAI poaching, should now be at the forefront of Amalgamation activities."
What do these fans think their fabricated boycott can achieve? What exactly is it that they're expecting the IFA to do about the player eligibility issue? I get the impression half are ignorant to the rules they're apparently protesting against whilst confusion also reigns as to what change exactly they should be demanding; proposed solutions have been aired from - without, it would seem, any hint of self-awareness - FIFA limiting players to playing only for the body governing the territory in which the individual was born to having the FAI voluntarily sign up to an agreement on selection with the IFA because they ought to feel ashamed of their "pro-apartheid, sectarian selection policy".
More than anything, they're surely just hurting their own association in the pocket. Have they already forgotten about CAS? It's not as if the IFA haven't already embarked on a foolhardy and futile attempt to subvert FIFA's interpretation of their own rules and have them read in the IFA's favour. Not only did that end fruitless but it left the IFA also having to foot the cost of legal fees for Daniel Kearns, the FAI and FIFA.
The chances of FIFA amending their rules are extremely slim to nil for a number of reasons, including: the IFA are a small and relatively unimportant association in the grand scheme of things (as are the FAI, for what it's worth, but inaction inevitably favours the FAI); the trend, as supported and lobbied for by the Francophone north African bloc of associations, seems to be flowing in the direction opposite to that which the IFA would prefer; and, beyond the internal politics and practicalities, the moral question of whether it would be acceptable to deny an Irishman the right to represent his country as well as the surrounding furore such might evoke if FIFA were to limit this right is probably something the organisation would prefer to stay well clear of and leave be if at all possible. I'd find it hard to envisage the formulation of a persuasive argument in favour of limitation besides.
Apart from the fact that it would make the potential of some agreement between the two associations a practical impossibility, cutting off all ties with the FAI (whatever that might involve exactly; deleting John Delaney, Don Givens and Marco Tardelli from Facebook, et cetera?), as I've seen suggested, wouldn't evoke any sympathy for the IFA's cause either, but then, the likelihood of the FAI voluntarily agreeing to unilaterally disadvantage their position when they're doing nothing in breach of the rules is somewhat unlikely anyway. All avenues appear pretty much doomed with the IFA in a no-win situation no matter what they do. Considering this, it all just seems like an effort to stir as much of a fuss as possible, but nothing with any real hope, direction or persuasion; anything but acknowledge that the IFA can't really do a huge deal or that the idea of Irish nationals playing for Ireland might actually make perfect sense.
