Potentially eligible players thread

[DannyInvincible]

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.

[geysir]

Perhaps I haven’t explained it properly. Maybe if my name was Yann Geysir you’d be all ears

Yann Hafner wrote about article 8 in one of his papers on eligibility from June 2010
(extracted from the french version)
[Rz 47] The second nationality can be derived from a dual nationality, a nationality which allows a player to represent more than one country or naturalization. In the case of naturalization, it must have been acquired before playing for all or part of an international match of any age category, failing that, article 7 will apply and the player will have to comply with stricter rules.

Actually, Yann is not fully kosher here, if a player fails to satisfy that single important condition in article 8, a timely acquisition of that naturalized citizenship, no compliance with article 7 will rescue the application to change associations, because article 7 eligibility is bound by the strict terms in article 5 part 2.

An article 7 applicant is uncapped at any level. An article 8 applicant has already been capped and looking for an exemption from the conditions in article 5 part 2
But it's interesting that Yann clearly implies that if naturalisation was the source of the 2nd nationality, the timely fashion of its acquisition is enough to satisfy FIFA and if it was not obtained on time, he says (albeit erroneously) they will have to satisfy the stricter rules in article 7.
In a crucial part he agrees with me , the terms of eligibility in article 8 are separate from articles 5 and 7 and are also less strict.

Why are the terms of article 7 stricter?
They are stricter because they regulate the integrity of the application of uncapped players to play for the country of their new citizenship. Those applicants have to be uncapped at any competitive level, because article 7 first refers to article 5 and the integrity of the change to a new country comes under greater scrutiny due to blatant exploitation of loopholes which challenged integrity.

Article 8 is for players who have already been capped at some level and who are applying to change association, as per their dual nationality.
There is a completely different criteria for them, much less strict.

An Irish citizen who was born to a naturalised Irish citizen outside Ireland, is exactly the type of dual nationality that can avail of article 8 to change associations, as long as he activated that citizenship before being capped at underage level for his country of birth.

[DannyInvincible]

OK, I appreciate what you're saying and thank you for explaining/elaborating. If I'm reading you correctly, that would mean it is possible then that my hypothetical dual French and Irish citizen (by virtue of an honorary citizenship granted by the Irish government when he was 18) would be eligible to play for the FAI after the age of 20 (effectively because he had already represented France competitively at under-age level when he was 20) but wouldn't have been eligible to play for the FAI at the age of 19. That just seems bizarre to me - or contrary to what the eligibility rules are seemingly there to accomplish - but if those are the rules, those are the rules.

Assuming Baba's hypothetical son wouldn't qualify to play for Ireland due to article 7, it would also mean that he would only become eligible to play for the FAI under article 8 if he played for England first (or another country for whom he was eligible) and then opted to switch to the FAI, so long as he held his Irish citizenship at the time he lined out for England. (I know you contend that Baba's son may qualify under article 5, but I'm still not sure why that's a reasonable assumption to make.)

You say Yann's statement, where he outlines that, "failing [satisfaction of the article 8 criteria], article 7 will apply and the player will have to comply with stricter rules", isn't kosher. Perhaps this can be reconciled with your earlier speculation that the "timely acquisition of nationality" clause in article 8 isn't always strictly applied?

Also, one other question/problem with the interpretation you've outlined; if a British national who has been playing for England by virtue of satisfying article 6 wishes to switch to another British association under article 8, how does FIFA determine whether or not that player is eligible to play for the other British association without recourse to article 6? If there is a recourse to article 6, what permits such a recourse? If such a recourse is required by logical necessity, couldn't it be argued that recourse to article 7 is also logically necessitated in instances where a player who has acquired a new nationality wishes to switch association?

[geysir]

OK, I appreciate what you're saying and thank you for explaining. If I'm reading you correctly, that would mean it is possible then that my hypothetical dual French and Irish citizen (by virtue of an honorary citizenship granted by the Irish government when he was 18) would be eligible to play for the FAI at the age of 22 (effectively because he had already represented France) but wouldn't have been eligible to plat for the FAI at the age of 19. That just seems bizarre to me - or contrary to what the rules are seemingly there to accomplish - but if those are the rules, those are the rules.

Honorary citizenship isn't very compelling and that's one reason why FIFA practice individual assessment of each applicant.
There is enough ambiguity in the FIFA statutes to find reason to not be convinced by such an application.
However, the child born to a naturalised citizen has a different merit to his application. It is generally accepted that such applications are individually assessed by FIFA. Imo that´s one good reason for why they allow much of the ambiguity to remain.

Assuming Baba's hypothetical son wouldn't qualify to play for Ireland due to article 7, it would also mean that he would only become eligible to play for the FAI under article 8 if he played for England first (or another country for whom he was eligible) and then opted to switch to the FAI, so long as he held his Irish citizenship at the time he lined out for England. (I know you contend that Baba's son may qualify under article 5, but I'm still not sure why that's a reasonable assumption to make.)

When it comes to genuine immigrants / refugees and their children, as distinct from football mercenaries, then FIFA usually will row in behind the rights of the player and grant the eligibility application or grant the exemption from the rule. FIFA are more concerned with weeding out the mercenary or/and the exploitative element. Strange enough, but this is a dept of FIFA which aims to operates in the interests of the player and integrity of the game.

You say Yann's statement, where he outlines that, "failing [satisfaction of the article 8 criteria], article 7 will apply and the player will have to comply with stricter rules", isn't kosher. Perhaps this can be reconciled with your earlier speculation that the "timely acquisition of nationality" clause in article 8 isn't always strictly applied?

No, I was very much mistaken, it appears that when it comes to a player requesting a transfer of association, FIFA want all the evidence and reasons for change. They want all the details. They want an account of the timeline and evidence to support it.

Also, one other question/problem with the interpretation you've outlined; if a British national who has been playing for England by virtue of satisfying article 6 wishes to switch to another British association under article 8, how does FIFA determine whether or not that player is eligible to play for the other British association without recourse to article 6? If there is a recourse to article 6, what permits such a recourse? If such a recourse is required by logical necessity, couldn't it be argued that recourse to article 7 is also logically necessitated in instances where a player who has acquired a new nationality wishes to switch association?

FIFA doesn't interfere with the criteria contained in article 6 which cover eligibility for the 4 UK associations. That's a zoned off area.
However, if a UK born player wants to play for a 2nd nationality, a country outside the UK, then he proceeds to apply through the normal FIFA channel and is subject to the conditions of the other articles .

[DannyInvincible]

Honorary citizenship isn't very compelling and that's one reason why FIFA practice individual assessment of each applicant.

Honorary citizenship grants the same rights as naturalisation (in Irish law, at least), but upon what set of criteria are these individual assessments based, if not the article 8 criteria? I thought applicants who wished to switch association only had to satisfy a strict application of the article 8 criteria, but if individual assessments are made - the introduction or acknowledgement of the concept of individuality would imply that a strict application of the general rule is not always conducted - and certain types of citizenship aren't deemed to be compelling, then there must be other considerations taken into account, such as the article 7 criteria perhaps?

There is enough ambiguity in the FIFA statutes to find reason to not be convinced by such an application.
However, the child born to a naturalised citizen has a different merit to his application. It is generally accepted that such applications are individually assessed by FIFA. Imo that´s one good reason for why they allow much of the ambiguity to remain.

We're simply discussing the hypothetical example in the context of article 8, which you contend is a completely distinct regulation that does not refer back to the preceding three articles, though. Where exactly is the ambiguity in article 8? Weren't you previously arguing there was no ambiguity in article 8? Your contention has been that possession alone of the citizenship of a second association suffices for a switch to be granted, so long as that citizenship was held at the time the applicant represented his first association. But, if there is ambiguity and there are other considerations (whatever they are), that cannot logically be the case.

FIFA doesn't interfere with the criteria contained in article 6 which cover eligibility for the 4 UK associations. That's a zoned off area.

Why is article 6 a "zoned off area"? To or for whom is it "zoned off"? It doesn't solely deal with eligibility for the four British associations (who do seem to enjoy a greater degree of independence or autonomy compared to other associations), after all; article 6 also governs eligibility for about 20 to 30 other associations. The article is still in FIFA's regulations, at the end of the day, so surely FIFA ultimately have discretion over this domain, if not for the British associations, then at least for the other 20-30 non-British associations to whom this regulation also applies, no?

Are you suggesting that if a player sought to switch from Ireland to the US (eligibility for whom is normally governed by article 6), or from Guam (who also share US nationality) to the US, FIFA wouldn't administer this (beyond confirming that the player satisfied article 8 presumably) and that it would be left up to the US federation (and possibly the Guamanian federation in the latter instance) to deal with it however they wished? Surely FIFA, as a governing body who, you would assume, wish to enforce an objective standard in order ensure and uphold the game's integrity, don't simply leave discretion such matters to the federations concerned. Wouldn't they leave open the possibility of an abuse of standards by federations who are given total discretion to act in their own interest?

Let's take the case of Jack Grealish as an example, in order to make another point/pose another question; he presumably had to lodge a request to switch from the FAI with FIFA. He was a British national at the time he played for Ireland. In real-life, as we know, he sought to switch to England and his switch was granted (by FIFA under article 8, I thought, but maybe not). Are you saying that had he actually sought to switch to Scotland (who also represent British citizenship, of course), that FIFA would hypothetically have permitted such a switch if the SFA (for whatever reason) gave it the green light - so FIFA would confirm satisfaction of article 8 and then leave it up to the British associations, in other words - despite Grealish not satisfying any of the article 6 criteria in respect of Scotland?

However, if a UK born player wants to play for a 2nd nationality, a country outside the UK, then he proceeds to apply through the normal FIFA channel and is subject to the conditions of the other articles .

He wouldn't be subject to article 8? Or are you referring to an uncapped player who is opting to play for an original association?

[gastric]

Lads, should this be debated on the eligibility thread rather than on here? I get excited on the possibility of new players and see amazingly detailed posts I haven't time to read. No offence meant, just saying.

[nigel-harps1954]

I think this thread has slowly turned into 'potentially ineligible players'.

[mark12345]

Lads, should this be debated on the eligibility thread rather than on here? I get excited on the possibility of new players and see amazingly detailed posts I haven't time to read. No offence meant, just saying.

Couldn't agree more. This post has turned into an immigration lawyer's corner.

[geysir]

Indeed, the thread had taken a turn into a whataboutery cul de sac.

[Eminence Grise]

I think this thread has slowly turned into 'potentially ineligible players'.

Unintelligible, more like. Have we really been wading through whether the hypothetical fruit of Noe Baba's loins might be able to play for Ireland? It's gone from surrealism to absurdism.

[johnnyc]

Potentially illegible thread. Dominated by few lads who post daily journals of waffle that nobody in their right mind cares about.

[Charlie Darwin]

Unintelligible, more like. Have we really been wading through whether the hypothetical fruit of Noe Baba's loins might be able to play for Ireland? It's gone from surrealism to absurdism.

When it gets to cubism we should be worried.

[geysir]

We are way post cubism these days.

[geysir]

Afaics, Jack Grealish is still a potentially eligible player.

That's thread relevance, served on a cold dish.

[Fixer82]

Teo is limited but will be in good company (think about it)

That took me a minute. Well played

[BonnieShels]

That took me a minute. Well played

5 days by my count. :P

[DannyInvincible]

We are way post cubism these days.

Hypothetical Baba Dadaism?

[DeLorean]

5 days by my count. :P

The joke doesn't even make sense. The player's name is Tee, not Teo.

P.S. Sorry Stutts.

[tetsujin1979]

Ethan Ampadu on the bench for Chelsea today

[Olé Olé]

Ethan Ampadu on the bench for Chelsea today

I find it so strange that nobody in the FAI picked up the phone to his father. They probably did. But surely if they had done it early Ampadu would be with us- given that he is Irish on his father's side and Welsh on his mother's and it is from his father that he probably gleaned the interest in football.

Maybe they did. Maybe they did it good and early bit the kid fancied Wales from the start and grew up a Ryan Giggs fan or something. Ah well...