Eligibility Rules, Okay

[Not Brazil]

A question for DI and the others who are well versed in the Eligibility Statutes on the forum - apologies if it's been covered before.

The CAS findings confirm that attempts at compromise were proposed by FIFA during the dispute.

One FIFA proposal was that "Every player born on the territory of Northern Ireland, holding the UK nationality and being entitled to a passport of the Republic of Ireland or born on the territory of the Republic of Ireland and holding the Irish nationality could either play for the [FAI] or the [IFA], under the condition that all other relevant prerequisites pertaining to player’s eligibility for a specific Association team are fulfilled”.

This was rejected by the IFA, and, subsequently, accepted by the FAI.

Whilst I am glad that the IFA rejected the proposal, had they accepted it, would it have meant that eligibility of citizens of the Republic Of Ireland would be subject to Article 16 of the Statutes - ie. a player holding only citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland would be eligible to represent more than one Association on account of Nationality?

[DannyInvincible]

It hasn't been covered on here to the best of my knowledge and is an interesting question. It's something I thought about when I was reading through the judgment again of late and I can't say for certain, but I imagine that the criteria laid out in article 16 wouldn't have applied if the FAI were happy to accept it, as that would have presumably ruled out northern-born players from declaring for the FAI, assuming "territory" was to be interpreted literally. In offering such a proposal, it would appear that FIFA were willing to let the two particular associations work within a special set of rules that would transcend certain other stipulations, although, then, it begs the question as to what these "other relevant prerequisites" would have been exactly.

Edit: There is a school of thought, however, that takes a purposive rather than a literal approach and would be of the opinion that it wouldn't matter either way if article 16 was applied to Irish nationality or not as the jurisdiction of the IFA can also be interpreted as the territory of the FAI. I call it the geysir school of thought.

[DannyInvincible]

I should hopefully finish up this piece I'm writing at some point this evening or tomorrow, but if anyone wants to have a look at what I've completed so far, send me a PM and I'll send you what I've done. Any advice or suggestions on tweaking something would, of course, be more than welcome. I'm not sure whether it would be better for me to post what I've written up here and then discuss it in the open or hold back on that for now. It's been suggested to hold back on making it fully public until it's completely finalised in order to maximise impact if it, or some version of it, does end up being published somewhere or shared around the various sites. The idea of peer-reviewing it, if you will, does appeal to me, but what do people reckon?

[BonnieShels]

I think that all draft discussions should possibly be made by pm as if it was to be posted with any errors it could end up being out there in the ether with the errors.

[ArdeeBhoy]

I should hopefully finish up this piece I'm writing at some point this evening or tomorrow, but if anyone wants to have a look at what I've completed so far, send me a PM and I'll send you what I've done. Any advice or suggestions on tweaking something would, of course, be more than welcome. I'm not sure whether it would be better for me to post what I've written up here and then discuss it in the open or hold back on that for now. It's been suggested to hold back on making it fully public until it's completely finalised in order to maximise impact if it, or some version of it, does end up being published somewhere or shared around the various sites. The idea of peer-reviewing it, if you will, does appeal to me, but what do people reckon?

Maybe start a new thread, if you decide to publish it on here. Though IMHO, best to ask people to PM their e-m add. with their poster name so you can be more discerning who you forward this to.....

Which dependent on your response is what I'm happy to do? As I can forward to a few relevant people for their considered legal opinions?

[DannyInvincible]

Maybe start a new thread, if you decide to publish it on here. Though IMHO, best to ask people to PM their e-m add. with their poster name so you can be more discerning who you forward this to.....

Which dependent on your response is what I'm happy to do? As I can forward to a few relevant people for their considered legal opinions?

You'll have to empty your PM box. It's full. Or, alternatively, just PM me your e-mail address and I shall have it with you forthwith.

[DannyInvincible]

Anyone have a copy of today's Irish News, by any chance? My da was telling me on the phone that he came across a piece on page 2 about Daniel Kearns and Darron Gibson in relation to the eligibility issue but wasn't in a position to go into detail. Not sure if it shed any new light on anything really. Suppose I could subscribe online for a week to see it, but would be just as handy if someone could summarise it here.

[DannyInvincible]

Just a query on the "granny rule" here, or, more specifically, the application of article 17 in light of one of the clauses in article 18. I'll take Simon Cox as an example. He qualifies through an Irish grandparent, if I'm not mistaken, and therefore would have had to have registered his birth with the Foreign Births Register where upon his citizenship of Ireland would have been recognised from the date of registration onward. It is generally assumed he would thus have been acquiring a new nationality and, consequently, his circumstances fell under the scope of article 17. There's a clause in article 18, however - the one that ruled out Mikel Arteta from being eligible to play for England -that states as follows:

18: Change of Association

1. 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.

Say, Cox had played for England at under-21 level or whatever and then acquired his Irish nationality just a few months ago at the age of 23 or 24 or whatever, does that clause in article 18 mean he wouldn't actually have been eligible to play for us? I'm assuming it would have. Wouldn't this impact upon some of those other English-born players who weren't Irish nationals from birth and who'd played at England at under-age level but in whom our management was apparently interested?

[Stuttgart88]

Arteta's nationality would have been acquired by virtue of his having fulfilled the residence criterion. At the time he played underage football (competitively) for Spain he didn't fulfill this criterion, so he fails Article 18.1(a). We knew that though.

wrt Cox, my contention is that article 17 may not necessarily apply. Cox may well qualify under article 15's "permanent nationality" clause because foreign birth registration is just a procedural detail, not the determining factor as to whether he is Irish (as one part of his dual nationality). The determining factor is his ancestry, which entitles him to Irish citizenship.

Or, put another way, at the time he would have hypothetically played for England's U21's, he was also an Irish national in FIFA's eyes and hence fulfilling the residence criterion was not necessary. If this is true, then doesn't it help us in our so far elusive quest for a definition of "permanent nationality"?

[DannyInvincible]

Or, put another way, at the time he would have hypothetically played for England's U21's, he was also an Irish national in FIFA's eyes and hence fulfilling the residence criterion was not necessary. If this is true, then doesn't it help us in our so far elusive quest for a definition of "permanent nationality"?

I'm just thinking, would that also negate the need for much of article 17 though? And geysir made reference to it earlier in the thread along the lines of how article 17 "wasn't called the 'granny rule' for nothing". That's assuming article 17 actually is what is commonly referred to as the "granny rule".

[Charlie Darwin]

No. It's the difference between citizenship and nationality - Cox has had Irish nationality all his life but has only had citizenship since he applied for it.

[Stuttgart88]

I'm going to bed and I'll think about it tomorrow.

[DannyInvincible]

No. It's the difference between citizenship and nationality - Cox has had Irish nationality all his life but has only had citizenship since he applied for it.

FIFA don't distinguish between the two though and I assumed that when they used the word "nationality", they were using it in a sense that meant one and the same thing as citizenship. Would that be mistaken?

Unless we look to Irish laws on citizenship, we've no way of deciphering objectively whether someone is an Irish national or not, so how would one prove Cox has been an Irish national all his life. Under what measure? Strictly speaking, Irish legislation does not define Irish nationality; rather it defines Irish citizenship, which is pretty much assumed to be the same thing for official purposes, no?

And are you saying Cox qualifies under article 15 then and is considered by FIFA to have always been an Irish national? If so, what's the purpose of much of article 17 and why is it referred to "the granny rule", assuming geysir is correct?

[Charlie Darwin]

FIFA don't distinguish but it doesn't mean they're the same. Citizenship is proof of nationality but it isn't the same thing.

Having Irish nationality means being entitled to apply for Irish citizenship. Simple as.

[DannyInvincible]

So, in the case of Cox, his acquiring of Irish citizenship was proof for FIFA that he has been an Irish national his whole life?

Is this why FIFA specifiy "acquisition of a new nationality" rather than "acquisition of a new citizenship" in article 17; so as to allow the likes of Cox (and, I suppose, the likes of Adam Barton and Alex Bruce with northern-born grandparents) to qualify under article 15?

Under what instance would someone eligible for Irish citizenship not have been an Irish national his or her whole life? Naturalised citizens, of course, wouldn't have been, but what about fourth or fifth generation "Irish" whose ancestors have passed citizenship down to the preceding generation by virtue of registering with the Foreign Births Register. Are they be deemed Irish nationals before acquiring citizenship, and, if so, who deems them so?

[Charlie Darwin]

I think, as Stutts alluded to, it's to prevent players like Arteta who played U21 for Spain and subsequently became eligible for British citizenship. The way FIFA has interpreted nationality to date is as an automatic entitlement to citizenship, whether it's Cox's grandparent route or Darron Gibson's birthright.

[BonnieShels]

Charlie's on the money here.

[DannyInvincible]

It sounds good. Although what was the case with poor old Kevin Nolan? Didn't he, relatively recently, claim to have been a generation too far out on qualifying for us or something. It transpired that he went back to reconsider playing for us after FIFA had lifted the cap of 21 years after which a player was tied down to an association if he'd already represented them. I've been trying to look for the exact story and can't seem to find it even though I think I discussed it on here myself, but you may recall it anyway. I remember what he said had been a bit convoluted and really not all that insightful - I don't know whether he was claiming he didn't qualify for Irish citizenship or that he didn't qualify to play for us under FIFA's rule - but it was something about his grandfather having been only half-Irish or quarter-Irish, if I recall correctly. I don't know if he was ever able to acquire Irish citizenship via the passing-down-through-descent method, but if he had have been able to acquire it that way, would he have been eligible under article 15 seeing as it would have been an automatic entitlement by virtue of his birth to a registered citizen?

There's a mention of the story I'm referring to here by Sky Sports but I'm nearly certain there was a slightly more in-depth piece on it. Maybe not.

Despite that achievement, Nolan has incredibly never played for England, mainly due to the form of Gerrard and Lampard, and he has thought about switching allegiances to Ireland.

But he does not qualify through his grandparents and at the age of 27 he thinks that his international career is over.

...

He added: "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!

"I did try and cheat like Tony Cascarino did by going over and having 14 pints of Guinness. Didn't work though."

Indeed...

[SwanVsDalton]

Well, well, well - seems there's a bit of poaching going on!

[Charlie Darwin]

Oh Nigel, Nigel.