FIFA removes age limit on players switching nations

[theworm2345]

NASSAU, June 3 (Reuters) - Many players could get a new chance to play international football after FIFA's congress surprisingly voted on Wednesday to remove the age limit on changing national teams.
Under established rules players with dual nationality, who had already played for a country's national team at youth level, were only allowed to switch loyalties until the age of 21.
A motion from the Algerian Football Association, removing the reference to the age limit, was passed by 58 percent of the FIFA Congress, opening the way for many players to get a second chance in international football.
The rule change does not affect any player who was played for the full national team as they are barred from switching nations.
The Algerian change was backed heavily by African countries - many of whom will now hope to 'regain' players who have played at youth level for European countries.
Algeria could now have access to several players who have featured in France's youth teams such as Lazio midfielder Mourad Meghni.
Meghni, who was born in France to Algerian parents, represented France at Under-17 and Under-21 level but has never played for the full national side.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/8539751


Could have some interesting repercussions for Ireland.

[SaucyJack]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/8539751


Could have some interesting repercussions for Ireland.

oh no, more Kevin Nolan posts. And I'm sure Ealing Green will be showing up soon.

[Lionel Ritchie]

The rule change does not affect any player who was played for the full national team as they are barred from switching nations.
The Algerian change was backed heavily by African countries - many of whom will now hope to 'regain' players who have played at youth level for European countries.
Algeria could now have access to several players who have featured in France's youth teams such as Lazio midfielder Mourad Meghni.
Meghni, who was born in France to Algerian parents, represented France at Under-17 and Under-21 level but has never played for the full national side.

....all seems fair and noble enough to me at a glance.

[EalingGreen]

oh no, more Kevin Nolan posts. And I'm sure Ealing Green will be showing up soon.

Never like to disappoint!

Personally, I'm not sure how this will pan out, but insofar as it has an effect, I suspect it will help NI's playing pool overall.

In terms of losing players (effectively to ROI), experience of Gibson and Wilson etc suggests that allegiances are tested, approaches made and switches confirmed by the time players are in their late teens, or 20/21.

Also, because we have the smallest playing pool of the 5 home countries, we tend to tie players at a younger age (i.e. by awarding caps) than most countries. Fair enough, there might be the odd "sleeper" who fails to break into the NI team whilst young, who might be of interest in later years to ROI, but these are likely to be v.few indeed.

On the other hand, I feel we can benefit from this by gaining 1st/2nd generation players from England/Scotland who might eg have played under-age football for the country of their birth, but end up being not quite good enough to gain full caps. In which case, the chance of an international career in their 20's with NI might just tempt a few?

As a matter of principle, however, if I'm going to be consistent on this, I have to say it is an unwelcome development. For I consider playing for your country is a privilege not a right, determined primarily by your place of birth. Therefore since you cannot choose where you are born(!), you should not be allowed to "choose" which country you play for - your country should choose you.

Consequently, I fear that this will facilitate that minority of players who, when it comes to choosing which country they play for, are more motivated by mercenary considerations than by feelings of national pride etc.

To take a non-Irish example, I suspect there will be French-born players of North African descent who are quite happy to play for the country of their birth up the age-groups who, when they find they are not quite good enough to play for the senior French team regularly, will suddenly "rediscover" their Algerian or Moroccan heritage.

Or, at least, their Agents will discover it for them...

[Den Perry]

Never like to disappoint!

Personally, I'm not sure how this will pan out, but insofar as it has an effect, I suspect it will help NI's playing pool overall.

In terms of losing players (effectively to ROI), experience of Gibson and Wilson etc suggests that allegiances are tested, approaches made and switches confirmed by the time players are in their late teens, or 20/21.

Also, because we have the smallest playing pool of the 5 home countries, we tend to tie players at a younger age (i.e. by awarding caps) than most countries. Fair enough, there might be the odd "sleeper" who fails to break into the NI team whilst young, who might be of interest in later years to ROI, but these are likely to be v.few indeed.

On the other hand, I feel we can benefit from this by gaining 1st/2nd generation players from England/Scotland who might eg have played under-age football for the country of their birth, but end up being not quite good enough to gain full caps. In which case, the chance of an international career in their 20's with NI might just tempt a few?

As a matter of principle, however, if I'm going to be consistent on this, I have to say it is an unwelcome development. For I consider playing for your country is a privilege not a right, determined primarily by your place of birth. Therefore since you cannot choose where you are born(!), you should not be allowed to "choose" which country you play for - your country should choose you.

Consequently, I fear that this will facilitate that minority of players who, when it comes to choosing which country they play for, are more motivated by mercenary considerations than by feelings of national pride etc.

To take a non-Irish example, I suspect there will be French-born players of North African descent who are quite happy to play for the country of their birth up the age-groups who, when they find they are not quite good enough to play for the senior French team regularly, will suddenly "rediscover" their Algerian or Moroccan heritage.

Or, at least, their Agents will discover it for them...

I don't believe that a player should have to play for the country they are born in(perhaps I am misinterpreting your passage above). For example I'm sure there are many players born abroad who would rather represent the country of their parents than that of their birth. However, I do not agree with players changing their mind willy nilly and holding out until they get a full call up. I think Zat Knight was approached a few years ago and played that kind of game(I'm not 100% sure on this though). On the other hand, I admire Dave Kitson for his honesty. He could have played for Ireland but stated that he would not have felt comfortable doing so.

Ray Houghton appeared to always long to be a Scottish International and thus I could never warm to him that much (despite this he always gave 100% for Ireland)

[Gather round]

I'm broadly with EG- this is a bad idea although in practice NI may gain more players from England than we lose to RoI.

Place of birth shouldn't be as significant as where the player lives while growing up. If the latter makes him eligible for two or more countries fair enough, but this footballing multi-eligibility should end once he's an adult (I suggested 18th birthday on another thread) and has played U-19 or U-21, not merely full internationals.

[EalingGreen]

I don't believe that a player should have to play for the country they are born in (perhaps I am misinterpreting your passage above)

That wasn't really what I meant. Whilst country of birth should (imo) be the primary determinant, of course there are people with dual nationality (due to parentage etc).

Such people should be entirely free to choose which of their Nationalities they wish to represent and if they choose that of their parents/grandparent over their country of birth, then fair play to them.

What I object to is allowing people to pick one, then switch easily to another, for what may be mercenary reasons eg not good enough to play for his first choice at senior level, so uses his 2nd choice in order to further his (selfish) career ends.

Such a situation does nothing for the ethos and well-being of international football (imo).

[DeLorean]

Very true EG, don't know why you've such a bad rep on here- you make some good points!!!

[Den Perry]

That wasn't really what I meant. Whilst country of birth should (imo) be the primary determinant, of course there are people with dual nationality (due to parentage etc).

Such people should be entirely free to choose which of their Nationalities they wish to represent and if they choose that of their parents/grandparent over their country of birth, then fair play to them.

What I object to is allowing people to pick one, then switch easily to another, for what may be mercenary reasons eg not good enough to play for his first choice at senior level, so uses his 2nd choice in order to further his (selfish) career ends.

Such a situation does nothing for the ethos and well-being of international football (imo).

Apologies, as I stated above I may have interpreted your statement incorrectly. You know what, I actually agree with all you've said there!!!

[Lionel Ritchie]

Never like to disappoint!

Nor should you. You take a fair amount of jip on this site, largely unwarranted and from individuals struggling to keep up. Unlike some I won't presume to speak for anyone but myself but I welcome your tuppenceworth on any subject here. Your opinions, whether I agree or not, are invariably well put and well considered. Hail EG!!! Now ...diplomatic niceties complete -onward to the substantive issues...

Personally, I'm not sure how this will pan out, but insofar as it has an effect, I suspect it will help NI's playing pool overall. ..... On the other hand, I feel we can benefit from this by gaining 1st/2nd generation players from England/Scotland who might eg have played under-age football for the country of their birth, but end up being not quite good enough to gain full caps. In which case, the chance of an international career in their 20's with NI might just tempt a few?

I'm inclined to agree and would say the same of our own. Whether such individuals are to be picked or not is the managers discretion. Dunno how many sloppy seconds we'd be taking from Scotland late on though. The likes of Steed Malbranque now on the other hand...

In terms of losing players (effectively to ROI), experience of Gibson and Wilson etc suggests that allegiances are tested, approaches made and switches confirmed by the time players are in their late teens, or 20/21.

Also, because we have the smallest playing pool of the 5 home countries, we tend to tie players at a younger age (i.e. by awarding caps) than most countries. Fair enough, there might be the odd "sleeper" who fails to break into the NI team whilst young, who might be of interest in later years to ROI, but these are likely to be v.few indeed.

Well, we've a curious though probably not unique, situation on this island. I don't feel that I have any right and I've certainly no desire to tell anyone from NI they may not play for ROI. If they want to play for us ...great, if they'd rather play for NI ...grand -best of luck.

BUT, while I believe any player eligible is 'up for grabs' til they've a senior cap, I have become uncomfortable with the idea of players effectively being cuckoos eggs in the IFA camp before switching to us. There's nothing technically illegal in it ...I've just come to find it distasteful. In that regard I'd probably favour some new, voluntary, local arrangment. Not one that effectively disbars, but one that makes a player choose somewhat earlier.

As a matter of principle, however, if I'm going to be consistent on this, I have to say it is an unwelcome development. For I consider playing for your country is a privilege not a right, determined primarily by your place of birth. Therefore since you cannot choose where you are born(!), you should not be allowed to "choose" which country you play for - your country should choose you.

Ding-ding! This is my stop. Your notion of 'Privilege' is noble but I reckon playing for a country is closer to a 'right' if you're legally eligible. A player should enjoy the luxury of choice if lucky enough to have the suitors. Thereafter it's the managers call.

Consequently, I fear that this will facilitate that minority of players who, when it comes to choosing which country they play for, are more motivated by mercenary considerations than by feelings of national pride etc.

Provided they remain the minority -where's the harm in it? All players play international football -on one level -for mercenary reasons. It's a career advancement op. Neil Lennon (I'm bringing him up for a legit football reason I promise ) played for NI for a mercenary reason -namely so he could get the hell out of Crewe! How many times I wonder has Keith Gillespie found himself in the employ of a despairing club manager who's eager to offload him -only to be given cause for rethink by a blistering display in a green shirt. More than a few I'd wager.

To take a non-Irish example, I suspect there will be French-born players of North African descent who are quite happy to play for the country of their birth up the age-groups who, when they find they are not quite good enough to play for the senior French team regularly, will suddenly "rediscover" their Algerian or Moroccan heritage.

Or, at least, their Agents will discover it for them...

...more power to Morocco and Algeria I reckon. Again it's at the discretion of the coach thereafter.

[EalingGreen]

I'm inclined to agree [about "mercenaries"] and would say the same of our own. Whether such individuals are to be picked or not is the managers discretion.

Ultimately it is at the manager's discretion. But there will invariably be a time when an international manager (himself, perhaps, an extremely well-paid individual from another country entirely? ) may find himself under pressure for a result, and so pick a player whose motives are less than pure.
And in any case, I don't see that FIFA should be facilitating this type of behaviour; they ought to be the guardians of the game's ethos (imo).

Well, we've a curious though probably not unique, situation on this island. I don't feel that I have any right and I've certainly no desire to tell anyone from NI they may not play for ROI. If they want to play for us ...great, if they'd rather play for NI ...grand -best of luck.

Well I personally do not see why the FAI should be unique amongst the 208 Member Associations of FIFA, but I'll leave that particular side-topic to one side.

For the moment...

BUT, while I believe any player eligible is 'up for grabs' til they've a senior cap, I have become uncomfortable with the idea of players effectively being cuckoos eggs in the IFA camp before switching to us. There's nothing technically illegal in it ...I've just come to find it distasteful. In that regard I'd probably favour some new, voluntary, local arrangment. Not one that effectively disbars, but one that makes a player choose somewhat earlier.

Your idea of requiring players to nominate earlier is a step in the right direction (imo), but why not revert to the voluntary agreement which stood for nearly 50 years, until unilaterally reneged on by the FAI, whereby we agree not to pick your players, if you agree not to pick ours?

Ding-ding! This is my stop. Your notion of 'Privilege' is noble but I reckon playing for a country is closer to a 'right' if you're legally eligible. A player should enjoy the luxury of choice if lucky enough to have the suitors.

If you are eligible, you should of course be entitled to enforce that right, whether eligible for one country or several. However, my point is that someone who has opted to represent one country should no longer be eligible to represent another (at least after, say, 18 years of age).

What should make someone eligible for one country or more is a separate matter: effectively birth or ancestry (imo).
For example, I have the same Passport and Nationality (British) as any Scot, Englishman or Taff. I have lived most of my adult life in England (with an English lass). I pay my taxes etc to the same Exchequer and enjoy all the other benefits (Health, Education etc) which go with it.
Yet I would never be entitled to represent England (or Scotland, Wales), nor should I be, even if I wanted to (I most certainly do not, btw!)
By contrast, I am perfectly entitled, via my maternal Grandparents, to represent ROI, but if somehow they ever where to ask, my reply would be "Non Grazie, Giovanni"

Provided they remain the minority -where's the harm in it?

But how do you ensure it is only ever a minority? Some sort of "Mercenary Quota"? And how big/small a minority? Three? Four? Five?

All players play international football -on one level -for mercenary reasons. It's a career advancement op.

Disagree. For example, one of my all-time favourites, James Quinn, once said this:
"If I can't play for Northern Ireland then I would rather quit football and become a fan and cheer the lads on to qualification.
"I've played 50 times for my county and that fills me with pride."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ls/6988817.stm
Quinn, who was born in England btw, was true to his word and retired from football (to become a joiner?), when he could probably have managed another couple of years in the lower Leagues.

Neil Lennon (I'm bringing him up for a legit football reason I promise ) played for NI for a mercenary reason -namely so he could get the hell out of Crewe!

Actually NL started off with Man. City, before dropping down to Crewe, a club with a terrific reputation under Dario Gradi for finding "undervalued trifles" from big clubs and setting their career back on the road again. This counted for far more in getting him back into the big time than any number of NI caps (first gained at a time when we were pretty crap, btw).
[By the way, the 10th Anniversary last week of "Danny Griffin Day" - the last time NI played ROI - threw up an interesting anecdote about NL on OWC, from one of our fans who went down to Dublin in a group:
"Included in our lot was our token RoI supporter who I'm happy to report took his defeat extremely badly ... in Jury's later on who should walk by but a certain man of the match (in my opinion, if not officially) Neil Lennon. 'Token' turns to Lennon and calls him a traitor. Lennon, much to his outrage and our cheers turns to us and gives us all high-5s"]

How many times I wonder has Keith Gillespie found himself in the employ of a despairing club manager who's eager to offload him -only to be given cause for rethink by a blistering display in a green shirt. More than a few I'd wager.

Notwithstanding that playing for NI is hardly the most glamorous of "shop windows"(!), I daresay there may have been a few but in NI's case, only a few.
And you've actually picked the worst possible example in Keith Gillespie, who has ALWAYS made the effort to turn out for NI, even when he was destroying a star-studded Barcelona in the Champions League for Newcastle (with a little help from Faustino Asprilla):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPGe9...eature=related
(watch from 3 mins in)

Anyhow, it might be different for other countries, but any time NI have ever achieved anything, it hasn't been through excess of supremely talented superstars; rather it has invariably been because we have fielded 11 players who have always worn the jersey with 100% pride and effort.

And as far as I am concerned, anything which risks detracting from that ethos, which has all but disappeared from club football and is is now really only to be found in the international game, would be a severe loss.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Ultimately it is at the manager's discretion. But there will invariably be a time when an international manager (himself, perhaps, an extremely well-paid individual from another country entirely? ) may find himself under pressure for a result, and so pick a player whose motives are less than pure.
And in any case, I don't see that FIFA should be facilitating this type of behaviour; they ought to be the guardians of the game's ethos (imo).

Fair comment. Though I think we'll find the world will be much the same when the dust settles on this and, the odd player aside, it isn't going to massively change the (quality) player pool available to anyone. On the parallel thread in the Ireland section they're examining this very issue and have come up with Jamie O'Hara (eligible for NI as well I believe) and that's about it.

Well I personally do not see why the FAI should be unique amongst the 208 Member Associations of FIFA, but I'll leave that particular side-topic to one side.

We're not unique at all. Like everyone else -players are selected who are legally entitled to play for us -and like everyone else we'd have felt the full brunt of FIFA sanction if we'd transgressed.

Your idea of requiring players to nominate earlier is a step in the right direction (imo), but why not revert to the voluntary agreement which stood for nearly 50 years, until unilaterally reneged on by the FAI, whereby we agree not to pick your players, if you agree not to pick ours?

I refer you back to my previous post. That agreement prevented a player born in Limavady representing us despite his having the same 'right' as a comparable player born in Limerick or London to represent us.

If you are eligible, you should of course be entitled to enforce that right, whether eligible for one country or several. However, my point is that someone who has opted to represent one country should no longer be eligible to represent another (at least after, say, 18 years of age).

Sounds about right (18 ...maybe 19) for our situation here in Ireland alright. I'm willing to give the new thing a try though as a general principle.

But how do you ensure it is only ever a minority? Some sort of "Mercenary Quota"? And how big/small a minority? Three? Four? Five?.

Again I don't think there's going to be huge mobility created by this. I'd be surprised if it led to more than an option or two per squad for most countries.

Disagree. For example, one of my all-time favourites, James Quinn, once said this:
"If I can't play for Northern Ireland then I would rather quit football and become a fan and cheer the lads on to qualification.
"I've played 50 times for my county and that fills me with pride."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ls/6988817.stm
Quinn, who was born in England btw, was true to his word and retired from football (to become a joiner?), when he could probably have managed another couple of years in the lower Leagues.
.

Don't knock it. Good money in joinery I'd say.

And you've actually picked the worst possible example in Keith Gillespie, who has ALWAYS made the effort to turn out for NI, even when he was destroying a star-studded Barcelona in the Champions League for Newcastle .

Yes one of Keiths good days. But then there's also the many fallow periods at Blackburn, the Blades, Leicester etc when Keiths best chance of a game came in international week ...and in fairness he'd put in a shift. I'm not utterly knocking him.

[Predator]

Like EG, I believe that international football should be about the honour and pride which accompanies (or should accompany?) representing one's country - a healthy form of nationalism perhaps? I also agree that players should avoid the temptation to switch back and forth for the aforementioned 'mercenary reasons'. However, in the case of players opting to play for either N.Ireland or Rep.of Ireland, it is much more complicated than that. Primarily, without delving too much into the historical position of Ireland, people in the North, especially in this generation are, in a sense, victims of geography and history (we all are I suppose). I know of many footballers from Derry, who would much rather represent the Republic, that have been capped at youth level for N.I. At such a young age, you cannot realistically expect a youth to turn down the opportunity to play international football. For those people who are against players from the North who have played under-age for N.I., playing for the Republic at a later stage and would rather they were integrated into the FAI youth squads from the beginning - you cannot expect a youngster from the North to be well integrated into the Republic youth set-up if there is no official FAI presence in the North at all. Perhaps this is something that may be set-up in future to prevent to undue 'loss', as it were, of talented players who strongly wish to play for RoI but have failed to receive integration at youth level - Shane Duffy for example.

With regard to EG's allusion to the 'voluntary agreement' between the IFA and the FAI, I have to disagree completely and I am glad that people from the North have been given the right to dual nationality. Whether people accept it or not, the very existence of Northern Ireland is, to some, an indication of the past imperialism of the 'British Empire' and to many people in the North, who consider themselves completely Irish, to represent such an entity would be utterly and diametrically opposed to their principles. The 'voluntary agreement' would serve to effectively force many players to play for a 'country' which they do not feel any affiliation with and this is wrong in my opinion.

This change of rules will definitely have effects on footballers world-wide, but in places like Ireland and other places that have been victims of colonialism or subject to mass immigration, the effects will certainly be more prevalent.

Regardless of the noble ideas of the pride and honour of playing for your country, players today are more concerned with making all the money they can (as professional football is an extremely competitive business and players' futures are forever in doubt) and international appearances bring with them, bonuses - Kevin Doyle, of course, being the exception! He'd sacrifice playing for Reading to play for Ireland any day! The sport has already been hi-jacked by faceless businessmen, including, I'm sad to say, the international arena.

I'd just like to add that when people say to 'keep politics out of football', it simply doesn't make sense, as international football would not exist without the existence of international borders, drawn up politically - just in case I get some flak!

[Gather round]

I know of many footballers from Derry, who would much rather represent the Republic, that have been capped at youth level for N.I. At such a young age, you cannot realistically expect a youth to turn down the opportunity to play international football

This is why I suggested an age limit above. An 18 year old youth footballer is an adult.

you cannot expect a youngster from the North to be well integrated into the Republic youth set-up if there is no official FAI presence in the North at all

If the FAI want to organise coaching, scouting etc. within Northern Ireland, it's likely to be opposed both by clubs and fans in the Republic- who'd prefer the money to be spent within the country- and obviously by NI fans who will be irritated. But of course neither grumble stops it happening- the FAI must have some sort of presence in England and Scotland, to identify and encourage potential players there.

Perhaps this is something that may be set-up in future to prevent to undue 'loss', as it were, of talented players who strongly wish to play for RoI but have failed to receive integration at youth level - Shane Duffy for example

I don't pretend to know the background to Duffy's case- I'd never heard of him two weeks ago. But isn't the problem- from your point of view- less that the FAI hasn't integrated him, more that Worthington (wrongly in my opinion) has chosen him for a full international against the World champions? If Duffy turns out to be a success in the English Prem, it'll look a smart move by the IFA- similar to the FAI's in signing McGeady or James McCarthy, maybe.

With regard to EG's allusion to the 'voluntary agreement' between the IFA and the FAI, I have to disagree completely and I am glad that people from the North have been given the right to dual nationality

Nationalists from Northern Ireland have always had (or been able to claim) effective dual nationality, in broad citizenship terms. If you mean purely in football terms through the voluntary agreement, point taken, but I'm sure you can see it from our point of view. If the IFA develops young footballers through schools and youth representative teams, it's only reasonable that those players remain eligible for us. Hence the age limit of 18 I mentioned.

Whether people accept it or not, the very existence of Northern Ireland is, to some, an indication of the past imperialism of the 'British Empire' and to many people in the North, who consider themselves completely Irish, to represent such an entity would be utterly and diametrically opposed to their principles. The 'voluntary agreement' would serve to effectively force many players to play for a 'country' which they do not feel any affiliation with and this is wrong in my opinion

Nobody's forcing anyone to play international football. My preferred refinement to the voluntary agreement merely stops adult footballers who've already played for NI U-19 or U-21 as adults from playing for the Republic. Anyone who happily plays for those teams, then tries the 'utterly and diametrically opposed' card will look silly- if they were that opposed, they wouldn't have played. Incidentally, I don't care what a player's party politics are provided he's committed to the team. And- like you- I'm 100% Irish

This change of rules will definitely have effects on footballers world-wide, but in places like Ireland and other places that have been victims of colonialism or subject to mass immigration, the effects will certainly be more prevalent

Maybe, but I think the existing trend will remain: players from larger/ richer/ stronger countries (England or France, say) will declare for smaller/ poorer/ weaker countries for which they are eligible (Northern Ireland or Algeria, say). As I've suggested in previous threads, there will probably continue to be more player from NI's (perceived)Nationalist areas and backgrounds in the NI squad than the RoI's.

I'd just like to add that when people say to 'keep politics out of football', it simply doesn't make sense, as international football would not exist without the existence of international borders, drawn up politically - just in case I get some flak!

As you say, any discussion of international football is political by definition. But that doesn't necessarily mean a tit for tat on whether we should abolish the border

[Predator]

I don't pretend to know the background to Duffy's case- I'd never heard of him two weeks ago. But isn't the problem- from your point of view- less that the FAI hasn't integrated him, more that Worthington (wrongly in my opinion) has chosen him for a full international against the World champions? If Duffy turns out to be a success in the English Prem, it'll look a smart move by the IFA- similar to the FAI's in signing McGeady or James McCarthy, maybe.

True, it would be seen as a smart move. Worthington was quick to act it seems, as opposed to the FAI's management teams, so fair play to him. Shane Duffy was just one example that I know of, but I'm sure there are bound to be others. Other threads on players like Barry Maguire talk of the same, seeming lack of correspondence from the FAI.

Nationalists from Northern Ireland have always had (or been able to claim) effective dual nationality, in broad citizenship terms. If you mean purely in football terms through the voluntary agreement, point taken, but I'm sure you can see it from our point of view. If the IFA develops young footballers through schools and youth representative teams, it's only reasonable that those players remain eligible for us. Hence the age limit of 18 I mentioned.

Apologies, I meant it in terms of football through the so-called 'voluntary agreement'.

Nobody's forcing anyone to play international football. My preferred refinement to the voluntary agreement merely stops adult footballers who've already played for NI U-19 or U-21 as adults from playing for the Republic. Anyone who happily plays for those teams, then tries the 'utterly and diametrically opposed' card will look silly- if they were that opposed, they wouldn't have played. Incidentally, I don't care what a player's party politics are provided he's committed to the team. And- like you- I'm 100% Irish

Yeah, in that case, for adult footballers it would seem silly, but the reality is that for many young players (young people in general) politics is almost never important; they would probably only develop a sustained interest in politics and history when they get to a certain age where they have reached a relative maturity of thought.

As you say, any discussion of international football is political by definition. But that doesn't necessarily mean a tit for tat on whether we should abolish the border

Haha! We'll leave it at that then