Eligibility Rules, Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr_Parker

Not necessarily the most reliable source imo.

---

Re Malcom Brodie, his yearbooks have had plenty of errors and ommisions but his historical research was usually very good.

The one difference in the 8 point plan did come up in a previous discussion on here. I very much doubt if the original document
survives and both Brodie and Byrne were relying on contempory newspaper accounts.

BTW you may already know but the FAI's case was made by Sir Henry McLaughlin who played with Cliftonville and was the first president of the FAI.

I'm a Espana 82 veteran AB.

My recollections are that the majority of flags were Northern Ireland flags - certainly more Union Flags than would be the case nowadays, but more Ulster Banners than UFs.

There was a lot of Northern Ireland flags with a small Union Flag in the top right hand corner as well - don't see many (if any) of those nowadays.

It was also my first recollection of many Northern Ireland fans wearing replica shirts - they were quite a snazzy Adidas number.

A lot of the older fans at Espana 82 still referred to the team as "Ireland".

NB,
Yes know those latter flags, my pal has a B. & W. photo of him grimacing in the vicinity of one I think, from Glengormley....
You may even be in his photo;will try to get hold of a copy, but may take a while....
;)

And you're right, don't see them much anymore, just the white & red one with a UJ as one whole quarter, up for a certain season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gspain

BTW you may already know but the FAI's case was made by Sir Henry McLaughlin who played with Cliftonville and was the first president of the FAI.

---

Cliftonville, mixing it since 1879. :D

Just happened to come across an interesting piece on the "granny rule" and other international eligibility issues down through the years up until the present day written by Emmet Malone in the Irish Times about three weeks ago. Maybe it's been mentioned somewhere on the forum already, although I haven't encountered it. It was written in the aftermath of Liam Lawrence's comments directed at "juggler" Jermaine Pennant and in light of the whole Adam Barton hullabaloo.

From it, I learned a few things, including the following:

i) Whilst his mother was from Leitrim, Ciarán Clark's father, Michael, was actually born in Scotland prior to being raised in Donegal so I assume Clark was eligible to play for Scotland as well, not that there is any indication that he ever considered doing such.

ii) Legend has it that Kevin Keegan once faxed the FAI to declare his interest in playing for us, only to give up on the idea after receiving no response.

iii) Paul Gascoigne was eligible to play for us.

iv) Whilst not being an altogether bad piece, generally displaying a well-informed level of research throughout, there still appears to be a lack of basic comprehension with regard to the respective FIFA articles relating to player eligibility for national sides within even the mainstream Irish footballing media. Or, at least, if Malone does understand the general implications of each article and how they relate to northern-born Irish nationals, he doesn't do a terrific job of demonstrating so.

Quote:

---

THE rules governing a person’s eligibility to play international football as well as his/her entitlement to switch their international allegiance are contained in Fifa’s statutes (numbers 15-18).

The starting point is that any person who holds the nationality of a country on a basis other than residency, is entitled to play football for that country. Where residency is involved Fifa has laid down time frames of its own in order to prevent abuses.

Where players might be entitled to represent more than one country, Fifa specifies that the player must have been born on the territory of the country that they wish to represent, that they have one parent/ grandparent who was born on the territory or that they have lived there for at least two years.

This is, in effect, the so called “granny rule”.

...

In relation to Ireland, a case brought to the Court of Arbitration for Sport by the IFA aimed at preventing players born in Northern Ireland from being free to declare for the Republic on the basis of their entitlement to dual nationality was rejected last year.

---

Malone fails to properly clarify the relevant statutes here and certainly does nothing to help quash the seemingly widespread confusion that prevails with regard to which rules apply where and how exactly they're to be interpreted. In this context, he also fails to distinguish between nationality in the singular sense and nationality in the plural sense and to adequately explain the rationale given by CAS as to why northern-born Irish nationals are perfectly within their rights to represent us.

It ought to be highlighted that where a player may be entitled to represent more than one country - and Malone here should have specified "on account of his nationality" (and not nationalities, importantly) - the statute governing this (article 16) refers to nationality in a singular sense rather than a plural sense. In effect, article 16 relates specifically to the situation within the UK where there are no such entities as official English, Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh nationalities, but, rather, where one singular and all-encompassing British nationality would make any British citizen eligible to play for any of the constituent teams were it not for the criteria laid out within. If a player possesses both British nationality and Irish nationality, he is not deemed to possess one solitary British-Irish nationality that enables him to play for both a UK constituent team and Ireland but, rather, his two nationalities are viewed as being exclusive from one another and are treated by FIFA's rules as such. It's important that this distinction be highlighted as there seems to be a prevailing misapprehension or assumption in the northern media, or Belfast Telegraph especially, and also amongst many OWC fans that the text of article 16 is that which ought to apply to the individual cases of northern-born Irish nationals who wish to declare for Ireland. It should be understood that article 16 has no bearing whatsoever on how Irish nationality applies to international eligibility as Irish nationality permits a player to represent only one international team. That being Ireland, of course.

Also, in light of the whole Adam Barton thing and the question of how exactly he qualifies to play for us, there appears to be uncertainty as to which rule actually is the famous "granny rule" in our case. Contrary to what Malone seems to be suggesting, it most certainly isn't article 16, but, arguably, it could be either of articles 15 or 17. I'm not so sure anyone has been able to clarify that for certain as of yet.

Another thing... Presumably, Conor Doyle (I'm guessing that Malone got his name confused when referring to a "Conor Daly") could still declare for us despite having played for our under-21s against Cyprus and then going on to represent the US in competition at under-20 level as he lined out for us in a mere friendly game? In essence, I assume that no change of association ever took effect for the purposes of FIFA...

CAS explained the application of article 16 perfectly well, outlining in a coherent manner how it applies in no way to Irish nationality, on page 22 of the Kearns judgment.

Quote:

---

a) Article 16

73. This provision governs the situation where a player, under the terms of Article 15 par. 1, is entitled to represent more than one association “on account of his nationality”. Under such circumstances, the player must meet one of the four territorial connections set out in the said provision.

74. Whether the player’s multiple eligibilities are based on one single nationality and/or on two or more nationalities is disputed. The IFA submits that Article 16 is applicable to any player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of multiple nationalities whereas the FAI submits that it is only applicable to
a player who is entitled to play for several associations on the basis of a “shared nationality”, i.e. a single e nationality that entitles him to represent two or more associations.

75. Based on the historical interpretation, it appears that the current Article 16 implements Annexe 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). Both provisions have a quasi-identical wording. The title of Annexe 2 (“Eligibility to play for association teams for players whose nationality entitles them to represent more than one association”) as well as the FIFA Commentary compel the conclusion that Article 16 covers exclusively the situations of players with “shared nationality”.

76. The fact that Article 16 applies only to players with “shared nationality” is also confirmed by its wording as well as by the systematic interpretation:

• The term of nationality is used in the singular form in the title as well as in the par. 1 of the provision, according to which “A Player who (…) is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality”. The IFA contends that the use of the singular form is acceptable English and does include individuals with more than one nationality. The Panel observes that such would not be the case in French or German. In this regard, the French version (“sa nationalité autorise à représenter plus d’une association”) and the German version of the 2009 Regulations (“Ein Spieler, der gemäss Art. 15 aufgrund seiner Staatsbürgerschaft für mehr als einen Verband spielberechtigt ist”) also use the term “nationality” in the singular form.

• Par. 2 of Article 16 expressly states that associations “sharing a common nationality” may make an agreement “to vary item (d)of para 1 of the Article”.

• As already noted, Article 18 provides exceptions to the second principle set out in Article 15. Its first paragraph begins with the following three sentences: “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”. In other words, Article 18 identifies the various categories of individuals who are allowed to change associations notwithstanding the Article 15 par. 2. In such a context, it is obvious that the first sentence deals with players who have dual (or more) nationality, i.e. are in a situation falling within Article 15, the third sentence with players who fall under Article 16 and the second sentence with players who fall under Article 17. If the IFA analysis were correct, it would follow that the first and third sentences would deal with the exactly same situation, which would inconsistent with any intelligible intention to be attributed to the rule-maker. The FAI analysis by contrast endows the Articles with a certain symmetry.

77. For all the above reasons, the Panel concludes that Article 16 of the 2009 Application Regulations is only applicable to players with a “shared nationality”. Whatever force the IFA’s submissions might have, if based exclusively on the complex language of the relevant provisions and an assumption that they were designed with the Irish situation specifically in mind, they must yield to an interpretation which recognizes both their historic origins and the wider issues they were designed to address.

78. In the case at hand, Mr Kearns has a dual nationality. He can choose to play for the IFA given his British passport and for the FAI given his Irish passport, without any added territorial connection. He would not have such an option if he held either British or the Irish nationality but not both. Under such circumstances,
the Appellant cannot reasonably claim that Mr Kearns’ situation is to be equated with shared nationality as provided under Article 16 or that he requests a changed of association from a starting point of a shared nationality. His situation, with respect to his Irish nationality, is not governed by Article 16, but by the general principle set forth by Article 15 par. 1 of the said Regulations. No further connection (as described by Article 16) has to exist between Mr Kearns and the Republic of Ireland to make him eligible to play for the FAI’s representative team.

79. The Panel noted that IFA also advanced an alternative argument that Mr Kearns had shared nationality because, as an Irish national (irrespective of his British nationality), he could play for either IFA or FAI and Mr Hunter asserted that it had always been the case that the IFA could select Irish nationals with a territorial connection to Northern Ireland. The absence of Irish nationality from the commentary on Annexe 2 is, he submitted, inconclusive. It was apparent to the Panel that the factual basis for the assertion was controversial and disputed by the FAI’s counsel. Since neither the factual nor legal basis for this argument was sufficiently established, the Panel is in no position to find in its favour.

---

Some great reading there Danny. When you stick to the facts and the arguments and interpretations that CAS put forward it just shows amazingly flimsy the IFA argument was.

On Kevin Keegan potentially declaring for us, I never heard that one before. Does anyone know his connection other than the very obvious one of his name?

Also re Martin Keown he always maintained that he waited on an Irish call-up and it was never forthcoming so who he just declared for Ingerland. Outside of Keown's statements on the matter I've never read or heard anything else about it.
Anyone here know anything about it? It's always bugged me of that possibility of him as a CB for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Also re Martin Keown he always maintained that he waited on an Irish call-up and it was never forthcoming so who he just declared for Ingerland. Outside of Keown's statements on the matter I've never read or heard anything else about it.
Anyone here know anything about it? It's always bugged me of that possibility of him as a CB for us.

---

He was asked about it on TV3 a few months ago. He said that his dad had left Ireland for London for work, and that the country had been good to them, so it was his way of giving back to England.

<EDIT>

I mentioned this in the Jamie O'Hara thread at the time of the interview: http://foot.ie/threads/126140-Jamie-...=1#post1325044

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Tony Cascarino and Martin Keown debating this now on TV3

Keown mentioned that he played for England because his Dad didn't want them to move to England and take advantage of what was offered there, and then not give something back. Might not have that word for word.
Said he saw Cunningham play as a striker, and mentioned his parents by name.

Really hope they make this available online later, it's well worth seeing.

---

Keown played a lot of GAA whilst growing up in England. He came from a very Irish background. I can understand his clubmate David O’Leary not informing the FAI of his eligibility. Afraid of losing his place after years of banishment by Charlton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

He was asked about it on TV3 a few months ago. He said that his dad had left Ireland for London for work, and that the country had been good to them, so it was his way of giving back to England.

<EDIT>

I mentioned this in the Jamie O'Hara thread at the time of the interview: http://foot.ie/threads/126140-Jamie-...=1#post1325044

---

I remember seeing this myself but can't remember what game they were analysing at all. Was it the Europa League final or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I remember seeing this myself but can't remember what game they were analysing at all. Was it the Europa League final or something?

---

I posted it on the 23rd February 2010.
Looking at the fixtures for that date - http://irish-abroad.appspot.com/Game...ate=2010-02-23 - I'd say it was one of the European games
UEFA Cup
Benfica 4-0 Hertha Berlin

Champions League
Olympiakos 0-1 Bordeaux
VFB Stuttgart 1-1 Barcelona

Probably the Stuttgart - Barcelona game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Just happened to come across an interesting piece on the "granny rule" and other international eligibility issues down through the years up until the present day written by Emmet Malone in the Irish Times about three weeks ago. Maybe it's been mentioned somewhere on the forum already, although I haven't encountered it. It was written in the aftermath of Liam Lawrence's comments directed at "juggler" Jermaine Pennant and in light of the whole Adam Barton hullabaloo.

From it, I learned a few things, including the following:

i) Whilst his mother was from Leitrim, Ciarán Clark's father, Michael, was actually born in Scotland prior to being raised in Donegal so I assume Clark was eligible to play for Scotland as well, not that there is any indication that he ever considered doing such.

ii) Legend has it that Kevin Keegan once faxed the FAI to declare his interest in playing for us, only to give up on the idea after receiving no response.

iii) Paul Gascoigne was eligible to play for us.

iv) Whilst not being an altogether bad piece, generally displaying a well-informed level of research throughout, there still appears to be a lack of basic comprehension with regard to the respective FIFA articles relating to player eligibility for national sides within even the mainstream Irish footballing media. Or, at least, if Malone does understand the general implications of each article and how they relate to northern-born Irish nationals, he doesn't do a terrific job of demonstrating so.



Malone fails to properly clarify the relevant statutes here and certainly does nothing to help quash the seemingly widespread confusion that prevails with regard to which rules apply where and how exactly they're to be interpreted. In this context, he also fails to distinguish between nationality in the singular sense and nationality in the plural sense and to adequately explain the rationale given by CAS as to why northern-born Irish nationals are perfectly within their rights to represent us.

It ought to be highlighted that where a player may be entitled to represent more than one country - and Malone here should have specified "on account of his nationality" (and not nationalities, importantly) - the statute governing this (article 16) refers to nationality in a singular sense rather than a plural sense. In effect, article 16 relates specifically to the situation within the UK where there are no such entities as official English, Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh nationalities, but, rather, where one singular and all-encompassing British nationality would make any British citizen eligible to play for any of the constituent teams were it not for the criteria laid out within. If a player possesses both British nationality and Irish nationality, he is not deemed to possess one solitary British-Irish nationality that enables him to play for both a UK constituent team and Ireland but, rather, his two nationalities are viewed as being exclusive from one another and are treated by FIFA's rules as such. It's important that this distinction be highlighted as there seems to be a prevailing misapprehension or assumption in the northern media, or Belfast Telegraph especially, and also amongst many OWC fans that the text of article 16 is that which ought to apply to the individual cases of northern-born Irish nationals who wish to declare for Ireland. It should be understood that article 16 has no bearing whatsoever on how Irish nationality applies to international eligibility as Irish nationality permits a player to represent only one international team. That being Ireland, of course.

Also, in light of the whole Adam Barton thing and the question of how exactly he qualifies to play for us, there appears to be uncertainty as to which rule actually is the famous "granny rule" in our case. Contrary to what Malone seems to be suggesting, it most certainly isn't article 16, but, arguably, it could be either of articles 15 or 17. I'm not so sure anyone has been able to clarify that for certain as of yet.

Another thing... Presumably, Conor Doyle (I'm guessing that Malone got his name confused when referring to a "Conor Daly") could still declare for us despite having played for our under-21s against Cyprus and then going on to represent the US in competition at under-20 level as he lined out for us in a mere friendly game? In essence, I assume that no change of association ever took effect for the purposes of FIFA...

---

I think if he had wrote and highlighted all this, no one would have read the article ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

I posted it on the 23rd February 2010.
Looking at the fixtures for that date - http://irish-abroad.appspot.com/Game...ate=2010-02-23 - I'd say it was one of the European games
UEFA Cup
Benfica 4-0 Hertha Berlin

Champions League
Olympiakos 0-1 Bordeaux
VFB Stuttgart 1-1 Barcelona

Probably the Stuttgart - Barcelona game

---

ive read in a few different interviews down through the years, he never had any intention of playing for Ireland. He always wanted to play for and chose England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I think if he had wrote and highlighted all this, no one would have read the article ;-)

---

Ha, 'tis a complex and delicate issue. The Kearns judgment wasn't 27 pages long for the craic of it. An extra paragraph to clarify the confusion that Malone needlessly contrives from what appears to be somewhat of a contradiction wouldn't have gone amiss. By simply stating, "Where players might be entitled to represent more than one country, Fifa specifies that the player must have been born on the territory of the country that they wish to represent, that they have one parent/grandparent who was born on the territory or that they have lived there for at least two years", one who isn't aware of the wording of article 16 might assume that this rule consequently applies to northern-born Irish nationals seeking to play for Ireland who are also eligible to represent Northern Ireland because, obviously, these players are, as Malone states, entitled to represent more than one country. But that's not exactly what the rule says. He omits mentioning the crucial operative phrase; that being, "on account of [the player's] nationality" (in the singular sense). It's important that this confusion be challenged and stamped out as it only compounds the notion amongst many NI fans that they have a valid grievance with the rules as they stand.

You can't expect a sports journalist to read 27 pages. He's not Clark Kent - that's like an hour's reading.

I find Malone's piece is accurate enough. Overall it is a good article.

He writes 'a case brought to the Court of Arbitration for Sport by the IFA aimed at preventing players born in Northern Ireland from being free to declare for the Republic on the basis of their entitlement to dual nationality was rejected last year'.

This is accurate enough. Malone does not describe the IFA case. And players from NI are entitled to declare for the FAI on the basis of their dual nationality.
If Malone felt it was necessary, all he would need to add is that they are eligible because they are Irish citizens.

There was no need for him to describe the IFA case and explain their confused interpretation of 'nationality' in Article 16.

That's true, but it was just the way he phrased the paragraph I highlighted in bold; I felt it could very easily reinforce any pre-existing misunderstanding.

The bit you highlighted in bold? There, he refers to what he calls the granny rule, article 17. And it is a bit vague.
Malone doesn't mention article 16. He doesn't have to, nor would explaining it, help clarify his article.

I suppose it's simpler just to state, that (at least) all first and second generation Irish nationals, regardless of birthplace, qualify for the FAI under the terms of article 15.
In fact, I don't think it could be written more simply :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

On Kevin Keegan potentially declaring for us, I never heard that one before. Does anyone know his connection other than the very obvious one of his name?

---

His grandfather was from Roscommon I believe.

Quote:

---

re Martin Keown he always maintained that he waited on an Irish call-up and it was never forthcoming so who he just declared for Ingerland. Outside of Keown's statements on the matter I've never read or heard anything else about it.
Anyone here know anything about it? It's always bugged me of that possibility of him as a CB for us.

---

Know his cousin (Corcaigh heritage) and was always disgusted Keown never declared for us. But as someone else pointed out here (& elsewhere in the past) he'd have barely got a game for Ireland at that time, besides injuries.

Really, Ive never heard that one about keegan. Keenan is a common name in Roscommon, thats not that common elsewhere but not really keegan...