Player eligibility row

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

I have no problem with anyone calling themselves Irish.

---

Thanks for your endorsement of my own Irishness. I hadn't thought it necessary, but there you go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Even if it was Paisley, Stone or Adair. Though I doubt any of them would want to especially claim or acknowledge it.

---

"I would never repudiate the fact that I am an Irishman" - Ian Paisley, Sunday Life, June 1991.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

It's just the Irish and British nonsense, unless there's mixed parentage.

---

Would you tell eg a born-and-bred Glaswegian that he cannot be both Scottish and British? Why do you have such difficulty with this? I find it hard to believe that you lack the basic intelligence, since it is such a simple concept. Perhaps you have such an ingrained sense of anti-Britishness that you are unable to accommodate such a radical idea? Or is it that deep down you do understand it, but cannot bring yourself to admit it publicly (presumably on the basis that it rather tears the arse out of several other of your dearly held prejudices)?

Anyhow, have you forgotten what it states in the GFA, which you otherwise cite approvingly (see The Fly, post #1054)?
Constitutional Issues part 1:

The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish
Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-
Irish Agreement, they will:

...(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to
identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they
may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Er, the GFA. It makes you 'Irish' and thus them also.....

---

The GFA does NOT "make me Irish". On the basis that I was born and brought up in Ireland, I was Irish long before the GFA was ever even thought of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

You can't have it both ways!!!

---

Actually, when it comes to being both British and Irish, I can. Ironically, it is you who cannot have it both ways i.e. citing the GFA when you think it suits your case, then ignoring it when it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

And you too now could have played, er, for the new Ireland team!!

---

Ever since the playing days of my fellow Fermanaghman, Harry Chatton*, it is clear I could have represented the FAI team, neither he nor I needed the GFA to make it so. (And that is quite aside from the fact of my having a Tipperary grandmother and a Leitrim grandfather, though as I have said elsewhere, I wouldn't swap five minutes as substitute for NI in a five goal hammering, for 100 ROI caps and a World Cup winner's medal)

* - Google him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Ha. Re-joining the Ugly K is unlikely, but the Commonwealth would even be worth it, if it meant a UI team, just to prove a point!

---

ROI membership of the Commonwealth would offer no chance of a single Irish international team, just as eg membership of the EU offers no prospect of a single European international team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Couldn't see most other countries complaining [about a single Irish football team before the existence of a single Irish state], as it would one less team in competition.....

---

We are often told by proponents of a single Irish team that such a team would be more competitive than two separate teams, therefore more likely to qualify for WC or Euro Finals etc. If so (and I don't necessarily accept it myself), then those other teams which now found it harder to qualify themselves if in the same Group as "Ireland", would likely feel miffed.
Moreover, the principle having been accepted, what would be to stop eg Holland and Belgium combining, so that the new team might now surmount the final hurdle and actually win a World Cup? I imagine Germany, Argentina and Spain, for instance would be worried.
Of course, Spain could always combine with Portugal, in order to cement their present status for the future...

Still, perhaps this might sustain you whilst you're waiting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ffuCVLECpY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Would you tell eg a born-and-bred Glaswegian that he cannot be both Scottish and British?

---

Wary of wading into this most epic and long drawn out episode of whataboutery......but perhaps the difference is that being "Scottish" is nothing other than a state of mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

I strongly suggest that you re-read the statutes concerning eligibility a little closer and once you have done so, you can report back to OWC and enlighten some of them (thankfully there are quite a few who accept the reality), since so many on there seem to hold your views in such high esteem. These players do not require grandparents or parents from Ireland, since they were born on the island of Ireland and have presumably always held Irish nationality.

The grandparentage thing comes into effect when a player has a nationality which entitles him to play for more than one association (eg British); it is a requirement in addition to holding the appropriate nationality. Similarly, if they held one nationality and then later assumed a new nationality entitling them to play for another association, then they would be required to have parents or grandparents that were born on the territory of the association they wish to represent (or to have lived there for 5 years) - such is the case with Qatari Brazilians (a comparison of yours which doesn't quite fit).

Another thing, maybe you'd like to post your speculative theory concerning the issue on here? I'm sure you'll get some constructive criticism which you can play with.

---

For what seems like the nth. time, let me restate my consistently held position, as outlined here and elsewhere.
1. Until the recent definitive* statement by FIFA, I felt that this issue was capable of going either way (IFA or FAI);
2. Since that statement, I have accepted FIFA's stance (i.e. FAI permitted to select NI-born players, outwith the usual parentage/residence criteria);
3. My acceptance that this is the case should not be confused with my personal opinion that it ought not to be the case (i.e. I feel that FIFA has erred in interpreting/applying its regulations etc).
Simple enough?

* - Subject to appeal to CAS etc

Catholic unionist :O) uncle Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

Your analogy suffers from an obvious flaw.

The Qatari state does not confer automatic citizenship of Qatar, onto the entire population of Brazil.

Trying to draw any comparison between those now 'infamous' Brazilians representing Qatar in international football, and Irish citizens from Northern Ireland representing the Republic of Ireland in the same arena, is frankly ridiculous!

---

In posting what I did, I was answering a specific point from another poster; I did not extend it in the way you are.

But consider these two possible future scenarios:
1. A child is born and brought up in NI to Polish parents and the FAI wants to cap him. Since the latest changes to the Irish Constitution, he is not automatically entitled to Irish nationality from birth (nor his parents/grandparents, obviously), therefore the FAI should not be permitted to select him. Meanwhile, they could, presumably, select eg Mark Lawrenson's English born-and-bred nephew, who may be about as "Irish" as David Cameron;
2. Somewhere in eg Estonia, a child is born and given a Russian name by his ethnic Russian parents, grows up speaking Russian, living in a Russian enclave and being educated in Russian. Yet if none of his parents/grandparents was born in Russia/USSR, he will only be entitled to play for Estonia, not "his" country, Russia.

Imo, by using the "Nationality from Birth" test to get around the Brazil/Qatari problem, FIFA has been caught out by the Irish nationality anomaly and risks either being similarly caught out by future anomalies, or proves inconsistent by refusing to apply it to cases analogous to that of eg Estonia/Russia (above).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

I don't know the percentage of youngsters who make the first approach, but it is most definitely NOT 100%. For example, both Kieran McKenna and Chris Baird have disclosed that they were approached first by the FAI. This is in direct contradiction of the assurance given to Jim Boyce by the FAI some time around 1995 (can't find link just now).

---

Quote/link? I would be quite surprised in one of those cases given information that I cannot put up publically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Once again, props to DannyI, The Fly and Predator, amongst others for your contributions above.

---

Having taken the time to read the entire thread, I would agree that some contributors stand out by virtue of the clarity, reasoning and understanding they have brought to this issue. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest you'll not find better clarification anywhere than the compendium of their posts.

Special mention must be also be made of the uncommon robustness of their foreheads, which have stood up remarkably well to the recurring motion of head against wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Imo, by using the "Nationality from Birth" test to get around the Brazil/Qatari problem, FIFA has been caught out by the Irish nationality anomaly and risks either being similarly caught out by future anomalies, or proves inconsistent by refusing to apply it to cases analogous to that of eg Estonia/Russia (above).

---

15 Principle
1. Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on
residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of
the Association of that country.
2. With the exception of the conditions specified in article 18 below, any Player
who has already participated in a match (either in full or in part) in an official
competition of any category or any type of football for one Association may not
play an international match for a representative team of another Association.

16 Nationality entitling players to represent
more than one Association
1. A Player who, under the terms of art. 15, is eligible to represent more than
one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international
match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant
nationality, he fulfils at least 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 on the territory of the relevant Association
for at least two years.
2. Regardless of par. 1 above, Associations sharing a common nationality may
make an agreement under which item (d) of par. 1 of this article is deleted
completely or amended to specify a longer time limit. Such agreements shall be
lodged with and approved by the Executive Committee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

The problem with eg Gibson or Kearns, is that they do not have a parent/grandparent from the Republic (unlike, say, Duffy or Wilson).

---

Problem? There is no problem with Gibson or Kearns, re their nationality or their eligibility to play for Ireland.

Maybe in your opinion there is a problem but God knows what maze of surmises and faulty premises those opinions are based on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

In posting what I did, I was answering a specific point from another poster; I did not extend it in the way you are.

But consider these two possible future scenarios:
1. A child is born and brought up in NI to Polish parents and the FAI wants to cap him. Since the latest changes to the Irish Constitution, he is not automatically entitled to Irish nationality from birth (nor his parents/grandparents, obviously), therefore the FAI should not be permitted to select him. Meanwhile, they could, presumably, select eg Mark Lawrenson's English born-and-bred nephew, who may be about as "Irish" as David Cameron;
2. Somewhere in eg Estonia, a child is born and given a Russian name by his ethnic Russian parents, grows up speaking Russian, living in a Russian enclave and being educated in Russian. Yet if none of his parents/grandparents was born in Russia/USSR, he will only be entitled to play for Estonia, not "his" country, Russia.

Imo, by using the "Nationality from Birth" test to get around the Brazil/Qatari problem, FIFA has been caught out by the Irish nationality anomaly and risks either being similarly caught out by future anomalies, or proves inconsistent by refusing to apply it to cases analogous to that of eg Estonia/Russia (above).

---

I would agree that it looks inconsistent in its application, but then its only one of a number of inconsistencies in FIFA's history, which I need not remind you include the "home nations" status as representatives in their own right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

We are often told by proponents of a single Irish team that such a team would be more competitive than two separate teams, therefore more likely to qualify for WC or Euro Finals etc. If so (and I don't necessarily accept it myself), then those other teams which now found it harder to qualify themselves if in the same Group as "Ireland", would likely feel miffed.Moreover, the principle having been accepted, what would be to stop eg Holland and Belgium combining, so that the new team might now surmount the final hurdle and actually win a World Cup? I imagine Germany, Argentina and Spain, for instance would be worried.
Of course, Spain could always combine with Portugal, in order to cement their present status for the future...

---

Anyone recall East Germany??? Dealing with the specifics from a footballing perspective - I seem to recall they merged with "West" Germany to form "Germany" with relatively little fuss.

I'm aware this was a natural extention of a political situation - ie, reunification of Germany - but the point is still valid that there were two teams who were permitted to merge into a stronger entity, eg a wider playing pool etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

2. Since that statement, I have accepted FIFA's stance (i.e. FAI permitted to select NI-born players, outwith the usual parentage/residence criteria);

---

Good. It's not that hard to understand, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

3. My acceptance that this is the case should not be confused with my personal opinion that it ought not to be the case (i.e. I feel that FIFA has erred in interpreting/applying its regulations etc).

---

It might help if you posted your rather speculative theory concerning the issue on here. Of course, FIFA is not erring in applying its own regulations and they have confirmed this on numerous occasions, but your opinion seems to be that nationality should not be the main principle in defining eligibility and that FIFA aren't bothered with amending the rules because it's 'too much hassle', or something along those lines.

Elsewhere, the Belfast Telegraph have reported with the rather provocative headline*:
Bid to block Republic picking Northern Ireland football players

Remarkably (maybe I shouldn't be surprised), the author, Stuart McKinley, has shown himself to be utterly ignorant when it comes to FIFA's statutes regarding eligibility, erroneously stating that,

"For years now the IFA have urged FIFA to enforce Article 15 of its statutes, which states that a player, one of his biological parents or grandparents must be born on the territory of the relevant association before he can represent that particular country — with Northern Ireland-born players not being eligible for the Republic of Ireland."

If this is the kind of misinformation that is being bandied about, then it is no surprise that many of the fans are so ignorant. Somebody needs to tell McKinley that the statutes are available from FIFA's website, for all to see.

*Provocative indeed. It is certainly a bold (spiteful?) bid to block players from playing for Ireland, but to state 'Northern Ireland footballers', as if they somehow belong to, or owe allegiance to Northern Ireland is incorrect. The article could alternatively read, as I've read in the past, "Bid to stop Irishman playing for Ireland".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Bull**** alert? Not wishing to get too involved in a dispute over the history of FIFA as I certainly can't call myself an expert, but don't the four respective British associations make up the International Football Association Board (IFAB) along with FIFA; each retaining an individual vote since 1958 while the other two hundred or so associations are accorded a mere four votes between them? In other words, the British associations exercise, and always have exercised, a disproportionate level of power. Since 1958, six votes have been required to carry any IFAB motion, contrary to your factually incorrect assertion in post #1106 that in the case of a 4-4 tie, the FIFA chairman will cast the deciding vote. Prior to 1958 and subsequent to FIFA joining in 1913, the voting was weighted even further in favour of the British associations with the four of them possessing two votes each and FIFA also possessing two votes with eight votes needed to carry a motion, meaning the British associations could pass any motion they wished if they all voted together, even if FIFA objected. How FIFA might have ignored or outvoted such obvious and domineering control, I'm not sure. Maybe you can help me get to grips with the idea...

---

You misunderstand the remit of the IFAB, which is to determine the playing rules of the game only (eg offside, substitutes, goalline technology etc) i.e. it plays no part whatever in the Constitutional governance of FIFA (inc international eligibility criteria).

(Incidentally, the other 202 Member Associations must presumably be happy enough with the four British Associations' special position on the IFAB, since it is open to them to change it with a simple vote at Congress etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Counter to your grave accusation - :rolleyes: - the FAI often refers to the Irish team as the "Republic of Ireland" and always as such in official competition. Naturally because FIFA have stipulated they do so.

---

FIFA mandates the FAI to use the title "ROI" for all official purposes, such as Match Programmes: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BIS_R7_5YV...eland+Away.jpg
However, I was merely pointing out that when they can get away with it (eg own website), the FAI tries to deny it. This is disingenuous imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

You mention that the IFA has "declined" to refer to its representative team as "Ireland" in friendlies since 1980. Err, kudos to them for demonstrating such tremendous restraint...

---

If* either Association has the right to use the name "Ireland", it must be the IFA, since we were the original Ireland, as reflected in FIFA's determination in 1953.

(Btw, when I attended my first international in Belfast in 1970, the NI team was still frequently referred to by fans (the older ones, at least) as "Ireland" in songs and chants etc. This was generally reflected in the media, too, whereas the FAI team at the time was called "Eire" more often than not)

* - Before you get too carried away, note my use of the term "if"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Why would the IFA still wish to refer to their team as "Ireland" anyway

---

Er, we don't, which is why we no longer use it (Duh!).
Our objection, however, is to the FAI seeking to use it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Anyway, is it all that big a deal? I don't know why you're getting so wound up and taking offence from the fact that people in Ireland will refer to the national representative team of Ireland as "Ireland". It's not meant as a subtle gibe or dig towards the IFA or at Northern Ireland's expense or existence, or whatever you take it to be. Of course, I'm well aware of the rationale behind its origin, but here we are now in 2010; it's just the name of the country and I would think that it's used completely innocently in the vast majority of cases

---

The reason why it so grates with NI fans etc is that the FAI calling themselves "Ireland" implies that theirs is somehow "the" (official) Irish team, with NI having some sort of lesser status. To which my reply would be "P1ss Off" - ours is every bit as proud and legitimate a team as yours, with a longer history.

Besides, if as you say, the issue of naming is "no big deal", then why cannot the FAI and its fans etc accept the name "ROI" for their team, as mandated by the governing body?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Why do you persist with this misinformed and ignorant rubbish when the error of your ways has been pointed out to you time and time again? The "problem" is, EG, that the like of Gibson is automatically Irish by birthright whereas even Norwood only qualifies to play for Northern Ireland through a mere grand-parental link, if I'm not mistaken. One could argue that the birthright of Gibson to Irishness would take precedence to any claim of Norwood's to "Northern Irishness" if there was some table for ranking the relative strengths of various modes of eligibility drawn up. (Of course, such a proposition sounds utterly daft as all modes have the identical effect ultimately, but bear with me for the sake of debate.) The fact that Norwood's eligibility to play for Northern Ireland spires from article 16.1.(c), whilst Gibson's eligibility is derived from the preceding article 15.1 is surely indicative of which mode takes primacy. The one thing you certainly can't say is that Norwood's mode of eligibility is somehow stronger or more valid than Gibson's. Therefore, taking all this into consideration, the FAI are perfectly entitled to approach the likes of Gibson to persuade him to play for us if they so wish, just as the IFA are entitled to approach Norwood and persuade him to play for them, or even just as the FAI were entitled to approach Robbie Keane and persuade him to play for us. Chew on that for a while...

---

See my post #1123 (above)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

What's the big deal if they'd have been perfectly entitled to play for us anyway? The FAI should be expanding its potential pool of players with confidence and vigour, just as, I'm sure, you hope the IFA do the same. I don't see the supposed shame or embarrassment in offering an Irish citizen an opportunity to play for us. The protestations over this particular aspect of the debate have particularly baffled me.

---

There are two basic objections (imo).
1. It was the FAI which originally complained about the IFA picking Southern players, leading to the "Gentlemens' [sic] Agreement whereby each Association would not pick each other's players. The FAI then unilaterally went back on their word. Even then, they assured the IFA that they would not make the first approach. They broke their word again. Worse still, they only approach NI players with a Nationalist background, thereby leading more closely to a situation whereby the FAI is seen as being the Nationalist Irish team (or "Catholic" team, if you're Shane Duffy) and the IFA as being the Unionist Irish team. (I personally despise this last aspect of the FAI's underhand behaviour most of all, btw);
2. Due to a political/Government policy on Nationality etc, over which the IFA has no influence whatever, we have a situation whereby a neighbouring Association is entitled to pick NI-born players, whereas we cannot pick ROI-born players. Regardless of the FAI's technical right to do so, if you cannot see why this should irk the IFA/NI team and its fans, then you are either very blinkered or in denial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

What exactly was this supposed assurance given to Jim Boyce in 1995, by the way? I'd appreciate if you did root out that link actually, because I didn't realise this whole thing was even an issue with the IFA in 1995. :rolleyes:

---

The actual assurance was in place as late as 1999:

Football:
CROSSLEY BORDER SWITCH SPARKS ROW.
Article from: Sunday Mirror (London, England) Article date:August 15, 1999 Author:Clark, Bill

GER CROSSLEY, Belfast born and bred, moves steadily toward his first international cap - but it will come from the Republic of Ireland.

The 19-year-old has chosen to elbow Lawrie McMenemy's team in favour of Mick McCarthy's squad. And there is not a thing the Irish FA can do about it.

President Jim Boyce revealed: "We have asked our opposite numbers in the south not to pick players born within Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, they will not agree.

"They promise not to actually approach our players but reserve the right to use volunteers"

Moreover, the example of Mark McKeever (born 16/11/78, player 12 times for the ROI U-18's) proves that the FAI must have been selecting NI players even before the GFA (April 1998):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McKeever

Sure Pred,
The BT are only playing to their paranoid constituency....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Answering my own question -ruling not expected for several weeks

---

Bah. I was hoping to get the pain over with quickly :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny Invincible

I'm not sure what the substantial point, beyond the cross-border framework that is already in place, would be in offering northern-born Irish citizens a vote. If you can think of one, though, I'm sure I wouldn't object

---

It was a weak gag, but maybe with a serious point. Occasionally on another board I've discussed this with a fellow poster from here. He's Irish (from Cork) but has lived abroad, currently in Sweden but mainly Netherlands, since early childhood. A pretty common situation, as you know. He thinks, quite reasonably, that he should have a vote in Irish elections, in parallel with what happens in other countries. But of course if he gets a vote, then potentially I- and hundreds of thousands of others up North- could do, and God knows who we'd drag in...

All of this is just a tangent, and I'm probably making too much of it, given that I've no real problem anyway with Gibson, Wilson, Duffy, Kearns and co. playing for the Republic. I just feel the assumption (quoted most often here by posters like AB), that the Republic reaches out to all Irish equally, needs at least some context.

Quote:

---

I think we're both in broad agreement anyway with differences being a matter of semantics. I never really got the time to respond back then, by the way, so apologies on that front. I was spending more than enough time on here as it was, ha, but I appreciated your endeavours in case you thought I was just being ignorant. Probably saved you a bit of bother anyway

---

No, I've always found your responses here to be interesting, full and detailed, even where we disagree. I spend too much time myself, although I did get a (deserved) yellow card a few months ago. I think I accused Ardee Bhoy of paranoia, or similar.

Quote:

---

don't the four respective British associations make up the International Football Association Board (IFAB) along with FIFA; each retaining an individual vote since 1958 while the other two hundred or so associations are accorded a mere four votes between them? In other words, the British associations exercise, and always have exercised, a disproportionate level of power

---

I've occasionally wondered why FIFA (and the rest of its 200 members) tolerate this oddity after so long. I've always assumed that the home countries got the privilege after Stanley Rous (English FIFA president in the 50s) agreed that the British would bale out the then bankrupt FIFA. Even if FIFA was weak enough to agree in perpetuity, such deals can be re-negotiated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ealing Green

Actually, both the IFA and the FAW voted against goal-line technology, I suspect because with Blatter having been publicly against it, both realised that Associations would have to stump up the money themselves to pay for it (not such a problem for the notably wealthier FA and SFA)

---

Are you sure about the SFA's wealth? I heard ex-Scotland international Tommy Boyd on the BBC the other day, complaining that they can't provide enough all-weather pitches for kids to play on.

Quote:

---

P.S. I know a Unionist from NI who is also a Republican! That is, he wants NI to remain within the UK, but with the hereditary Monarchy replaced by an elected President. (Her Madge's status doesn't bother me personally, but each to his own, I guess)

---

Me too, I've always been a republican (usually saying 'abolitionist' to avoid confusion with our shinner friends). I mean, I like that there's a republic in Ireland. It'd be even better if there were two.

Quote:

---

1. A child is born and brought up in NI to Polish parents and the FAI wants to cap him…2. Somewhere in eg Estonia, a child is born and given a Russian name by his ethnic Russian parents, grows up speaking Russian, living in a Russian enclave and being educated in Russian

---

Is this a cover version of ‘In the ghetto’?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardee Bhoy

So now you're a nationalist?? You need to change your terminology! Lol

---

Nobody half wise could think I'm a nationalist. You need to stop trolling. And could you stop doing that LOL thing? If we think it’s funny, we’ll tell you.

Quote:

---

Except that they and various other colonial outposts were and are still massively subsidised by the British Exchequer and economy largely based in London

---

How is this relevant? The entire British economy is centralised and thus dominated by/ from London. Most of the South, Midlands and North of England, as well as Scotland, Wales and NI. As a result there is net transfer to most or all of those regions. I don't deny NI's structural problems, but they aren't quite as stark as you suggest. For example- most obviously- we are only about 2.5% of the population of Britain, thus pretty small beer. And while 70% of the local economy is public sector, it's basically the same in Wales. So not significantly explained by 30 years of political violence. Now that that's largely gone, we are just another backwater among many in this country.

Quote:

---

Most of this is just pointless waffle. As for terminology, the unionists I've encountered tend to say the 'Republic', or maybe 'Southern' Ireland, which is as about as polite as it gets

---

As opposed to your 100+ semi-coherent posts on the thread, you mean? If you're not interested, don't read them, and obviously don't reply! Your other point is basically agreeing with me anyway, although the term 'Southern Ireland' is pretty invariably used as a wind-up.

Quote:

---

According to the relevant thread about this on OWB, it was done to spite the FAI given its relative relevance to them! And would expect nothing less. Though to be fair to the IFA, no-one could possibly suggested they impacted on the machinations of FIFA/Bl*tter who are a law onto theselves

---

Wise up. The IFA's basis for voting had nothing to do with the FAI. Or is this just another of your ****-takes?

Quote:

---

you'll be glad to know GR suggested elsewhere some time ago, they should all go to play for 'Ingerland, simply by virtue of being born there and having better, er, prospects!

---

Not true. I've always suggested a personal preference that qualification for international football should be basically through an individual's residence, not his parent or grandparent's birthplace. So, in the example I mentioned above in reply to Co Down Green, Lee Hodson (Watford defender, aged 19, from Watford) is clearly English. We (IFA) are just exploiting his ancestry. If he chooses to play for us, on the strength of one season in the Champ, he'll likely go straight into the first team squad. Whereas with England, he'd get U-21 caps at best. His likelihood of displacing Glen Johnson from the full England side is basically zero. If he was that good, he wouldn't still be at Watford.

Quote:

---

Lastly if the two FA's can split, there's nothing in current logic to defy they can't reunite at some point....

---

Your "current logic" fails to grasp that they're currently in two different countries, with no comparable situation anywhere else in the World.

Quote:

---

I have no problem with anyone calling themselves Irish. Even if it was Paisley, Stone or Adair. Though I doubt any of them would want to especially claim or acknowledge it. It's just the Irish and British nonsense, unless there's mixed parentage

---

Obviously you do have a problem, you've basically repeated it 100 times on the thread.

Quote:

---

Er, the GFA. It makes you 'Irish'

---

It doesn't. Whatever the GFA's worth and significance, it doesn't make EG or me Irish. We've always been Irish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fly

The Qatari state does not confer automatic citizenship of Qatar, to the entire population of Brazil

---

It would be funny if they did. Imagine a future World Cup winning Qatari side including Ze Mohammed, Abdulinho and Mustafakaka (sorry, I've just seen an Irn-Bru advert on a similar theme)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supreme Feet

Been trying to clarify this whole issue in my own head. I was thinking that 'maybe, just maybe the Northern posters have a point here', with the distiction being made that the FAI represents only the territory within the existing borders of the Republic of Ireland. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how simple this really is

---

The NI supporting posters don't agree with each other on every issue. However, I think we're at one in realising that your constitution's claim- ie, "The Football Association of Ireland is the governing body of football in Ireland", is just as misleading/ wrong as the Articles Two and Three which for 50 years basically ignored reality and claimed we were all part of the same country/ state/ jurisdiction/ whatever. Picking Darron Gibson no more makes the FAI the governing body in Derry, than giving Liam Lawrence the place alongside him puts them in charge in Sherwood Forest.

BTW, "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born on the Island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation" no longer applies- it was replaced following a referendum a few years ago in which nearly 80% of voters denied that birthright/ nationhood to other Irish-born children in future. Sorry to labor the point, but it's a bit puzzling how many of you lot think just quoting from the Constitution clinches everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IFK 10

Even without reading the eligibility statutes and in a general context, FIFA employs a negative stance to political interference in football. International football is organised competition between nations not states (which are political creations)

---

Ha ha. Aren't nations political creations too? Or do you think they emerged fully-formed from the primordial swamp?

Quote:

---

After all why should the Irish nation have two international football teams?

---

Er, there are two Irish nations. Anyway, FIFA seem(ed) to manage quite well with two or three Korean, Danish, German teams etc. etc. Not to mention four from Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Red Army

but perhaps the difference is that being "Scottish" is nothing other than a state of mind?

---

Isn’t that New York City-ish? (Sorry, I’m a Billy Joel fan).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Anyone recall East Germany??? Dealing with the specifics from a footballing perspective - I seem to recall they merged with "West" Germany to form "Germany" with relatively little fuss…I'm aware this was a natural extention of a political situation - ie, reunification of Germany - but the point is still valid that there were two teams who were permitted to merge into a stronger entity, eg a wider playing pool etc

---

EG qualified his point, he was referring specifically to teams merging where their parent countries didn’t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

Remarkably (maybe I shouldn't be surprised), the author, Stuart McKinley, has shown himself to be utterly ignorant when it comes to FIFA's statutes regarding eligibility, erroneously stating that,

"For years now the IFA have urged FIFA to enforce Article 15 of its statutes, which states that a player, one of his biological parents or grandparents must be born on the territory of the relevant association before he can represent that particular country — with Northern Ireland-born players not being eligible for the Republic of Ireland."

If this is the kind of misinformation that is being bandied about, then it is no surprise that many of the fans are so ignorant. Somebody needs to tell McKinley that the statutes are available from FIFA's website, for all to see.

---

TBH he's not the only one. There seems to be a lot of copy and paste going on. Nobody seems bother about reading the actual statutes and that the IFA is seeking to uphold them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Wary of wading into this most epic and long drawn out episode of whataboutery......but perhaps the difference is that being "Scottish" is nothing other than a state of mind?

---

Fcuk Me! "There's no such thing as 'Scottishness', merely an illusion to that effect in the minds of five million North Brits"

Would you like to tell that to your average SNP supporter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by co. down green

So you actually have no idea whether either player was ever approached by the FAI?

---

No, I have seen it credibly reported that the FAI made the initial approach to both Baird and McKenna.

I cannot easily or quickly bring those reports to hand and have neither the time nor the inclination to root them out.

Therefore you'll either have to believe me, or believe that I am just making it all up.

Either way, I couldn't give a flying fcuk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Fcuk Me! "There's no such thing as 'Scottishness', merely an illusion to that effect in the minds of five million North Brits"

Would you like to tell that to your average SNP supporter?

---

I said it was a state of mind, not that its imaginary or made up. The point was to highlight that there's a world of difference when comparing a country that is able to issue passports and is recognised by the UN as a state, versus a consituent part of another state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

(Incidentally, the other 202 Member Associations must presumably be happy enough with the four British Associations' special position on the IFAB, since it is open to them to change it with a simple vote at Congress etc)

---

It was you who used the word inconsistent. The fact that other nations haven't objected doesn't mean it isn't inconsistent.

And it quite patently is inconsistent. Just like the RoI/NI eligibility situation. The only difference is that you support one inconsistency (or to use your/FIFA language "special position") and don't like the other.