
Originally Posted by
geysir
I had already edited my post a day before to correct my reference to Ciaran.
Apologies, I see that. I was working off the original unedited version as I had quoted that at the time and left it open on my laptop to compose a reply as and when I got an opportunity to do so. 
I don't know about Scott Hogan or others with a grandparent connection to irish citizenship, who belatedly decide to acquire irish citizenship
Don't they talk about being able to qualify for Irish citizenship due to the Irish grandparent connection? and therefore they can declare for Ireland?
They would acquire their Irish citizenship through the very same mechanism as Baba's hypothetical son; via registration on the FBR. To the best of my knowledge, they have to satisfy article 7 to be eligible to represent the FAI. Seeing as Baba's hypothetical son will have acquired his Irish citizenship in the same manner as the likes of Hogan - via FBR-registration - that's why I'm of the opinion that Baba's hypothetical son would also have to satisfy article 7 in order to play for Ireland. (However, he doesn't actually satisfy any of the criteria when they're applied to his hypothetical circumstances.)
I'm claiming that a Noe Junior born abroad to an Irish citizen such as Noe Baba, could use his Irish nationality to be selected at youth level for Ireland and play his way through to the seniors.
Sure; if he was eligible to play for the FAI, that is. But upon what are you basing such an assertion? He isn't an Irish citizen until his birth is registered on the FBR and his citizenship only takes effect from the date of registration. After that, because he has acquired his citizenship after birth, he has to satisfy article 7. However, due to his circumstances, he can't actually fulfil any of the criteria therein; he wasn't born in Ireland, his parents weren't born in Ireland, his grandparents weren't born in Ireland and he never resided in Ireland, never mind for five years after the age of 18.
Thus, I don't see how he'd be eligible to play for Ireland, be it either as his first association or as a second association. If you're contending that he would qualify to play for the FAI under article 5, you'll need to explain why you think that is.
Surely it would be absurd that an Irish citizen who wouldn't be eligible to play for Ireland as his first association would be eligible to play for Ireland so long as he switched to the FAI from another association for whom he was eligible and for whom he played after he was already an Irish citizen.
And should he have first played for England at underage level, all that he needs is to demonstrate (with evidence) is that he had Irish nationality before he played for England.
In other words, he would have to have activated his Irish citizenship before playing for England.
Let's run with the following hypothetical case to demonstrate the logical conclusion or a potential bizarre consequence (surely impossible in reality) of your position:
The Irish government happens to award a French national, aged 18 and born in France, who has no family connection whatsoever to Ireland and who has never set foot in Ireland, an honorary Irish citizenship (which carries with it full legal rights) as a token to honour this person's (French/non-Irish) grandparent, who did business in Ireland or provided Ireland with some form of artistic or cultural enrichment and who, in the opinion of the government, "rendered distinguished service to the nation" in doing so.
This 18-year-old person, now a dual French and Irish citizen, also happens to be very good at football. The FAI hear wind that he's an Irish citizen and look into selecting him, aged 19. However, it turns out he isn't actually eligible because his citizenship was acquired post-birth (or newly, in FIFA terms) and he doesn't satisfy any of the criteria outlined in article 7, which applies when a new nationality has been acquired.
At the age of 20, this person, who has remained resident in France, is selected by the French football federation for the first time to represent the France under-21 team. He then plays for France competitively at under-age level. At the age of 22, he is no longer being selected by the French football federation and is no longer eligible to play for the under-21 team on account of being over-age. The manager of France's senior team doesn't appear interested in him, so the player considers his options.
According to your position (if I'm understanding it correctly), he would now be fully entitled to switch and play for Ireland under article 8, simply by virtue of the fact that he had held Irish citizenship at the time he represented France, irrespective of the mechanism or means by which he acquired his Irish citizenship (because article 7's criteria allegedly no longer matter at this point). Is this what you're saying?
Not only does that view appear to contradict what CAS stated in Kearns, it also presents an utterly absurd vista. Do you not think it's odd that the above hypothetical person won't have been eligible to play for Ireland at the age of 19 (because he didn't satisfy the article 7 criteria), but will have been eligible at the age of 22 simply because he played competitively for another association - from whom he then switched - in the mean time? In effect, you may as well be saying that his eligibility for Ireland is triggered by having played for another association.
Because, according to Article 8, should a Noe Junior have first played for England underage, he could switch his allegiance to Ireland.
And that makes a monkey out of saying Noe Junior could not have first chosen to play for Ireland in the manner I described.
So, you're saying the article 5-7 criteria can be simply ignored when a player has acquired a new nationality since birth and wishes to switch to the association representing that nationality?
You are inventing conditions without any evidence.
Article 8.1 does not refer to other articles, it is a separate article of eligibility. It is a complete article of eligibility.
Under article 8, a dual national player can chose to switch to play for the country of his 2nd nationality as long as he was a national of that country before he played for his first country. If a dual national player satisfies that clear condition, he can make the switch.
There is no add on, no addendum, no annex anywhere, to contradict that.
If you claim what is written in the article 8 is not the complete truth, that there are other conditions at play, then you have to provide evidence to prove it.
You just can't make a wild statement and demand that I disprove it
If the previous three articles weren't relevant to article 8, then why does it expressly refer to the various distinctions with which they separately deal? If they're irrelevant and article 8 means what you're claiming it means, then why doesn't article 8 just say that a player may make a request to change association "[i]f [that] player possesses a second nationality" (before going on to express the requirement for that nationality to have been held before the player played for his first association) instead of saying that a player may make a request to change association "[i]f [that] Player has more than one nationality, or if [that] Player acquires a new nationality, or if [that] Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality"?
Or, if article 8 really means what you're claiming it means, those three clauses could have been omitted altogether and the article could have run as follows:
"A player 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...."
But it doesn't say that and I believe that that is because the three clauses do have specific significance and refer back to the preceding three articles. Why else would they be expressly mentioned by description of what they oversee?
And what about, say, a player who may wish to switch from one of the British associations to another? He'd obviously have to satisfy both article 6 and article 8, for how would it otherwise be determined which association he'd be eligible to switch to and play for without necessary reference back to article 6?
Article 8 outlines the conditions that enable a switch, but, as far as I'm concerned, a player still has to satisfy one of the other three mentioned eligibility criteria as well. I think I've more than justified why I believe this to be the case.
Bookmarks