Eligibility Rules, Okay

**Not Brazil** · 25/05/2012, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I do too, but you can have what one might call positive, neutral or malign inequality in the very same way. Isn't affirmative action an example of unequal treatment in theory in order to create greater equality in practice?

If a Citizen of the Irish Republic, from Louth for example, with no blood ties to Northern Ireland whatsoever, were allowed to play for the Irish Football Association on account of his Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, mindful that the Irish Football Association is British Association - but a player from Belfast, A British National, is denied the choice to play for The Football Association, a British Association - how would that be creating "greater equality in practice"?

**osarusan** · 25/05/2012, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

If someone can't even get the basics right, especially when they have consistently derided others for such, why would they even have an iota of credibility...

Indeed...

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Originally Posted by Not Brazil View Post
Jesus wept.

I've already answered that - the South's players born in England, for example, are British Citizens.

They would be enjoying a senior international career with England if they were good enough

Actually none of them are British 'citizens', otherwise they couldn't play for Ireland, FFS!!

Btw, my sister from Doire's kids are all Irish citizens, despite them being born in England. And never have been.

So something else you need to read up on!

http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligib...=1#post1558941

Comedy ensues as the penny slowly, slowly drops.

**ArdeeBhoy** · 25/05/2012, 11:03 PM

What comedy? And I'm not setting myself up as being totally self-righteous on the subject...

Nothing that I wrote more than 6 months ago is factually incorrect, except that those kids are also entitled to become British citizens which is ultimately up to them... perhaps you also have proof that any Irish players are exclusively British citizens?

Otherwise the 'joke' is on you...

**ArdeeBhoy** · 25/05/2012, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

If a Citizen of the Irish Republic, from Louth for example, with no blood ties to Northern Ireland whatsoever, were allowed to play for the Irish Football Association on account of his Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, mindful that the Irish Football Association is British Association - but a player from Belfast, A British National, is denied the choice to play for The Football Association, a British Association - how would that be creating "greater equality in practice"?

Doubtless another dig at me;you missed out as the great-granny was from An Dun, albeit from before independence...

**DannyInvincible** · 25/05/2012, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

If a Citizen of the Irish Republic, from Louth for example, with no blood ties to Northern Ireland whatsoever, were allowed to play for the Irish Football Association on account of his Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, mindful that the Irish Football Association is British Association - but a player from Belfast, A British National, is denied the choice to play for The Football Association, a British Association - how would that be creating "greater equality in practice"?

What amounts to "greater equality in practice" is a subjective matter; one of perspective. I'm not saying it would create greater equality in practice. I'm saying it appears that FIFA thought their 2007 proposal might have created such in suggesting the introduction of a theoretical inequality in order to balance what they perceived to be a "one-way situation" (or practical inequality, perhaps) at the time.

**Not Brazil** · 25/05/2012, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

Comedy ensues as the penny slowly, slowly drops.

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Doubtless another dig at me

Do you think my treatment for paranoia is working osarusan?

**ArdeeBhoy** · 26/05/2012, 12:07 AM

Well, you do like to make personal digs...

Good that you learnt to MQ though.

**Not Brazil** · 26/05/2012, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by osarusan

Comedy ensues as the penny slowly, slowly drops.

From someone from the north, to someone in the south, keep a wee eye out for some of the hypocrisy you might find from people in places like Louth (but not exclusively) about the naming of territory on this island.

I ask that favour in my capacity as a paranoid hypocrite.

**ArdeeBhoy** · 26/05/2012, 12:34 AM

Whatever you are, you're no comedian. Though an atlas would be a good idea in certain respects.

There are a number of questions that people have asked you though, going over the last few pages, which you've chosen not to answer. Probably because the answer would contradict other material you've posted and it doesn't suit your agenda, which is difficult to fathom at times...

**geysir** · 26/05/2012, 8:43 AM

At least someone has copped on that Ardee is in Louth, and that a poster called ArdeeBhoy most likely is from Ardee.
Who was it that that thought you were a Nordie AB?

**geysir** · 26/05/2012, 9:24 AM

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

Would you offer any indication of how you would envisage such a "compromise document" would read?

I'm struggling to see how a "compromise document" for the Irish issue, would not discriminate.

Perhaps, they may have just scrapped Annex 2 altogether.

A compromise document does discriminate by nature, in the sense of treating a situation as different and requiring a different approach than other situations.
The UK agreement came in in 1993 and prevented a player for playing another association even though he had the nationality of that association.
Why can that player not pick and choose his best option and just be bound by his first competitive cap or whatever was the binding criteria then? The 4 associations sat down and made an agreement drawing the lines of eligibility. Yet according to the statutes, a player should be able to play for the association of his nationality

So, as I have written many times recently, I suspect in 2007 (and before) it was possible to do a unique agreement, like the 1993 UK agreement cocooned away from the statutes, but I suspect FIFA practice changed shortly after this time (NOV 2007) and they moved to bring changes. One of those changes was to bring the UK agreement into the statutes, fully incorporated with no reference that it was referring only to UK Nationals, it was now applicable to all players everywhere who had a single nationality but eligible for many associations.

As I wrote, I suspect this has more significance than just a tidy up job, and what was possible to do before 2008 with a unique agreement, was not possible to do after that time.
Maybe this has something to do with what the CAS judgement referred to in the case of Daniel Kearns
"In any event, the alleged tacit agreement may not be used to defeat the claim ofMr Kearns, who was of course not a party to any such agreement and who, in anyevent, is entitled to exercise his rights as provided under Article 15 and 18 of the2009 Application Regulations."

Maybe players are entitled to exercise their rights as provided by the Statute Articles over and above unique agreements entered into by their association and FIFA copped onto that in late 2007?

**DannyInvincible** · 26/05/2012, 9:46 AM

Originally Posted by geysir

One of those changes was to bring the UK agreement into the statutes, fully incorporated with no reference that it was referring only to UK Nationals, it was now applicable to all players everywhere who had a single nationality but eligible for many associations.

As an aside, do we know for certain of any associations, other than the British ones, that share a nationality? The Faroese and Danish associations? And any idea how eligibility for such associations was adjudicated prior to Annexe 2?

**geysir** · 26/05/2012, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

As an aside, do we know for certain of any associations, other than the British ones, that share a nationality? The Faroese and Danish associations? And any idea how eligibility for such associations was adjudicated prior to Annexe 2?

I have a few ideas but not definitive ideas. The Faroes achieved a form of Home Rule in 1940. Faroes nationality was given some recognition, separate flag and a separate passport. The Faroes passport was similar to the Danish one but a different colour and inside it indicated that the holder was a Faroese and also a Danish citizen
So what ever criteria entitled a player to be regarded a Faroese national meant he was eligible to play for the Faroes.

**DannyInvincible** · 26/05/2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by geysir

I have a few ideas but not definitive ideas. The Faroes achieved a form of Home Rule in 1940. Faroes nationality was given some recognition, separate flag and a separate passport. The Faroes passport was similar to the Danish one but a different colour and inside it indicated that the holder was a Faroese and also a Danish citizen
So what ever criteria entitled a player to be regarded a Faroese national meant he was eligible to play for the Faroes.

Aye, had been reading up on that before. On Danish passports, Wiki states, "Different versions exist for nationals of Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands although all citizens have the same nationality", which I assume is correct, so I wonder do FIFA view the Faroese as possessing the same nationality - that being the nationality of the Kingdom of Denmark - as those born in the territory of Denmark, or do they view them as being of Faroese nationality because they possess different passports, albeit ones that seemingly differ in appearance only...

Danish passport:

Danish (Faroese) passport:

What are your other ideas?

**geysir** · 26/05/2012, 11:23 AM

As I wrote, the status of separate Faroes nationality is given recognition with the separate flag and the recognition of Faroese in the separate passport.
If the Faroese did not have a football team, I presume the players would be eligible for Denmark based on their Danish citizenship.
Since the Faroes have a football team, I suspect there was some thought (by UEFA/FIFA) put into who actually is eligible to play for them. As there was already existing a definition of Faroese nationality, a defined criteria for being a Faroese national, Danish compliance and there is no dispute, then it can work without any need for legislation -- I presume.

**ArdeeBhoy** · 26/05/2012, 11:25 AM

Having been to the Faroes, they claimed they were 'ethnic Norwegian', if anything other than Faroese.
Though don't think could survive economically if fully independent.

**DannyInvincible** · 26/05/2012, 11:34 AM

Sinn F�in's Sandra McLellan and Matt Carthy calling for an all-Ireland team at their Ard Fheis earlier. They must have missed the one McClean and Gibson will be lining out for later. Why do they keep calling for this? They obviously have no idea what FIFA rules are on the matter in that a single, de jure all-island team is not something presently possible, no matter how ideal it might seem.

**ArdeeBhoy** · 26/05/2012, 11:35 AM

It's just symbolism. Though as has been oft-repeated, works in various other sports...

**DannyInvincible** · 26/05/2012, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Having been to the Faroes, they claimed they were 'ethnic Norwegian', if anything other than Faroese.

Bit of Gaelic in there too.

**geysir** · 26/05/2012, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Having been to the Faroes, they claimed they were 'ethnic Norwegian', if anything other than Faroese.
Though don't think could survive economically if fully independent.

In general, a Faroese will consider themselves first a Faroese, feel closest to an Icelander, with a predominately Norwegian ancestory. Norway would be the culture they identify with most out of Norway/Sweden /Denmark. The closest language to Faroese and Icelandic is Norwegian.