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.
Originally Posted by Mr_Parker
Quote
Bookmarks