Player eligibility row

[DannyInvincible]

Of course I accept that kids born in NI to non-Irish parents may not be eligible either.

This is indeed the effect of the amendment and current legislation.

If the latter, that does reassure my concern, thanks.

I've come across this: http://www.unhcr.ie/statelessness.html

Not sure how recent it is, though, as no date has been provided, but it appears that the legislation as it is currently allows for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the possibility of waiving the naturalisation requirements otherwise in place when it comes to the matter of a stateless person, both 'de jure' and 'de facto'. However, it does mention:

Currently UNHCR has noted that there are no procedures in which stateless persons can have their status considered. The lack of identification impacts on stateless persons’ ability to get, for instance, stay permits, travel documents, and to make representation to the Minister to waive the naturalisation requirements as specified in Section 16 (g) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 as amended.

I'm not sure how all this operates in practice. It doesn't appear, either, from that, at least, that Irish citizenship will be conferred automatically onto stateless persons. Although, the legislation, which I've decided to take a look at again, appears to contradict that notion somewhat: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/conso...dationINCA.pdf

You'll see there that section 6 (3) states: "A person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she is not entitled to citizenship of any other country."

If FIFA replaced their grandparentage rule with one only referring parents, it would have a similar effect. Plenty of proud RoI and NI internationals wouldn't have been allowed to play, but who says that would have denied them any part of their proud patriotism?

At least if FIFA did that, it would apply evenly across the board, so I imagine any qualms with it would have less validity. If FIFA were to restrict the eligibility of certain Irish nationals by birthright whilst allowing others in possession of the exact same status to play, it would appear unfair to me in that it would impinge on a certain newly-created sub-category of Irish national by introducing an arbitrary dichotomy within a specific status of national as opposed to between certain statuses of nationals. That's the distinction.

No need to be picky. My point was that providing those documents, rights and support costs very little. My parents worked for the Brit Foreign Office abroad for years and providing consular support to tourists who'd lost their passports or money was a very minor sideline. Following directly from that, offering the service doesn't cost much more for six million people in Ireland than it does for four. Why doesn't the Dublin government give the passport-holders a vote too for a small fee: then we could have an interesting battle for the last seat in Diaspora North-east...

I suppose, if you were to look at it that way, it could be argued that the provision of the documents, rights and support would cost as little or as much - whatever your perspective on prudent and efficient state expenditure - in relative terms between four million persons and a potential six million persons as it would be to provide an extra two million or so people with some symbolic "representation" in parliament. The need for such is rendered rather pointless, however, by the fact that such "representation" would be completely meaningless and ineffective due to a border limiting the jurisdictional remit of the parliament. Anyhow, the Irish government remains fully committed to cross-border initiatives and bodies to which it is party, as well as the funding of such. At least it can be said that offering citizenship extra-territorially does offer some benefit of substance, no matter how significant or insignificant, once again depending on your perspective. I'm not sure what the substantial point, beyond the cross-border framework that is already in place, would be in offering northern-born Irish citizens a vote. If you can think of one, though, I'm sure I wouldn't object.

Disagree with the latter point. Although I recognise the need at the time to placate disgruntled unionists as well as nationalists, Northern Ireland could have survived perfectly well with a smaller population and geographical area. Luxembourg manages well; Cyprus managed yet another partition despite being much smaller than NI, let alone Ireland as a whole. Not least because NI retained the security of still forming part of the much bigger Britain.

Quite possibly; even probably. Admittedly, as you've shown, the claim that it might have struggled to sustain itself, especially with the security of the union behind it, was the weaker of my two points. Although, I still think it is fair to say that holding onto as big an area as was logistically and demographically possible, whilst still manufacturing what many would view as the impression of consent/a democratic unionist majority in the new statelet, was in the interests of unionists who sought to partition the island. We've kind of had this debate before and - not wishing to hastily assume anything - I think we're both in broad agreement anyway with differences being a matter of semantics. I never really got the time to respond back then, by the way, so apologies on that front. I was spending more than enough time on here as it was, ha, but I appreciated your endeavours in case you thought I was just being ignorant. Probably saved you a bit of bother anyway.

[DannyInvincible]

Answering my own question -ruling not expected for several weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...sh/8836124.stm

Well, bugger that. I'd been hoping all this would be wrapped up today and we'd be saved from seeing this thread reach page 70.

I suppose there have been no official announcements from either the IFA or the FAI on how they felt proceedings went or is there some sort of confidentiality clause in play?

[EalingGreen]

Funny how EG is obsessed with ensuring that everyone uses the official FIFA-endorsed name for the football team (Republic of Ireland), yet when he refers to the independent country that it represents, he refuses to use the official, internationally recognised name for that country (Ireland). For example, see his repeated references to the supposed irredentist citizenship policy of "the Republic of Ireland".

As I say, you may call your country whatever you like, according to your political preferences/prejudices, just as I shall continue to call it what I like, according to mine.
But this is a Football Forum, and when it comes to the naming of the two Irish International Football teams, it is not a question of choice (preferred or prejudiced), it is a question of fact. That is, the authoritative body, FIFA, has mandated that the two teams shall be called "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". Fortunately, this also allows for convenient abbreviation, ROI and NI (not that this stops prats labouriously typing out "the North", or "Six Counties" etc, in order to avoid recognising even the very existence of NI, state or football team).

The reality is, it's perfectly natural for people to use the same name for their country and the team that represents it. Sadly, FIFA took the unprecedented decision to prevent the FAI from calling its international football team by the same name as the internationally-accepted name for the country that it represents.

I don't know whether it was without precedent (and neither do you, I suspect), but it was certainly not without subsequent parallels - eg Taiwan/China or the two Koreas.

Of course, FIFA took that decision because the UK associations abused their (undemocratic) position of power within FIFA to ensure they did so.

Mope Alert! In 1953, the four British Associations only constituted a small minority of FIFA Members - FIFA could quite easily have ignored/outvoted them, had it wished.

If there had been a Court of Arbitration for Sport in 1953, when FIFA made that ruling, I'm pretty sure it would have been overturned.

Only "pretty sure"? Come, come, surely you can do better than that when it comes to getting inside the mind of an organisation which didn't even exist, at a time when you weren't even born*?

* - Apologies if you are over 57 years of age...

If you try to look at it objectively, the situation was as follows:
- Two distinct teams wanted to call themselves "Ireland"
- One of those teams represented an independent country called "Ireland"
- The other represented a region known as "Northern Ireland", which lies within a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I guess that's one definition of "objective".
Anyhow, here's mine:
1. For 73 years from 1880, there was a Football Association ("Irish Football Association") whose team called itself "Ireland", entirely legitimately;
2. Meanwhile in 1921, a grouping broke away from the IFA, styling itself the "FAIFS" and its team "Irish Free State";
3. Nearly 30 years later on, the FAIFS elected to rename itself the FAI and unilaterally call its team "Ireland", following political developments within its own juridiction;
4. By 1953 FIFA, when confronted by the contradictory and confusing situation of two teams calling themselves "Ireland" entering the same World Cup, determined that the IFA must alter its name to "Northern Ireland" (for competition purposes only*), with the FAI to adopt the name "Republic of Ireland";
5. Subsequently the IFA continues to abide by the ruling, whereas the FAI resists doing so.

* - That is, the IFA is still entitled to call itself "Ireland" for friendly matches, though it has declined to do so since around 1980 (its 100th Anniversary, btw)

It's pretty obvious that one team was perfectly entitled to call itself "Ireland" and the other was not.

Well, you took your time, but you got one thing right, at least...

Anyway, if EG wants to use only officially "correct" names all round, then that's up to him. But if he continues to use "ROI" for both the football team and the country, then he's just a hypocrite. Either way, nothing that FIFA or EG say is going to change the terminology I use - as I see it, I come from a country called Ireland, so I will continue to call my national football team "Ireland".

Knock yourself out, Republic Boy...

[EalingGreen]

Perhaps Beaglehole should consider how he came to persuade promising Manchester United youth player Oliver Norwood to leave the English youth set-up to join him. Over 25 English born youth players have been 'cherry picked' by Beaglehole to represent the North in the last few years. The large number of players has attracted the concern of the English FA and players like Joe Dudgeon have been contacted by the English FA about his future intentions.

Every single one* of those young players has a parent or grandparent from NI, inc Norwood. Therefore, SB/IFA are perfectly entitled to approach them to persuade them to play for NI. Similarly, the English FA is perfectly entitled to approach any young NI-born player who has an English parent/grandparent, to ask them to play for England.
The problem with eg Gibson or Kearns, is that they do not have a parent/grandparent from the Republic (unlike, say, Duffy or Wilson).

* - Including, incidentally, Steve Beaglehole's own son, Shamus [sic]

Its quite clear that it is palyers who are contacting the FAI with the intention of representing Ireland as was the case with Wilson, Duffy and almost all of the current crop of players from Derry like the McEleney brothers.

I don't know the percentage of youngsters who make the first approach, but it is most definitely NOT 100%. For example, both Kieran McKenna and Chris Baird have disclosed that they were approached first by the FAI. This is in direct contradiction of the assurance given to Jim Boyce by the FAI some time around 1995 (can't find link just now).

[EalingGreen]

I like to think of it like Virginia and West Virginia. The original state got to keep its name and the breakaway territory adopted a qualifier.

Let me see now...

First there was the IFA, then the FAI broke away. With the former having the right to the name "Ireland" ab initio, by your analogy, surely it must be for the latter to adopt the qualifier?

[EalingGreen]

That would be the same goal-line technology that the IFA voted against when given a chance to decide it's fate, thus consigning it to oblivion for the forseeable future aye?

Actually, both the IFA and the FAW voted against goal-line technology, I suspect because with Blatter having been publicly against it, both realised that Associations would have to stump up the money themselves to pay for it (not such a problem for the notably wealthier FA and SFA).

And in any case, it was not the IFA's vote which consigned it to oblivion etc. Even had they and the FAW voted in favour, it still would not have passed, since the four FIFA delegates to the Board all voted against the new technology and when the Board is tied 4-4, the FIFA Chairman has the casting vote.

[Charlie Darwin]

Let me see now...

First there was the IFA, then the FAI broke away. With the former having the right to the name "Ireland" ab initio, by your analogy, surely it must be for the latter to adopt the qualifier?

I was talking about the countries. Like everybody in the world, I refer to football teams according to what country or nation they represent.

[ArdeeBhoy]

I've always been from Northern Ireland and thus Irish.

So now you're a nationalist?? You need to change your terminology! Lol.

Although I recognise the need at the time to placate disgruntled unionists as well as nationalists, Northern Ireland could have survived perfectly well with a smaller population and geographical area.
Luxembourg manages well; Cyprus managed yet another partition despite being much smaller than NI, let alone Ireland as a whole. Not least because NI retained the security of still forming part of the much bigger Britain.

Except that they and various other colonial outposts were and are still massively subsidised by the British Exchequer and economy largely based in London.

Echoing Wolfie's point, in most of the rest of the World it's just Ireland.
But recently, on another board, Wolfie's point was made by a Belgian guy. He lives in Nivelles, a suburban town near Brussels. An area in which many cities and villages- and even some streets in central Brussels- have two or three names.

Without wanting to lapse too far into whataboutery, earlier in the thread I found myself typing 'Home Internationals', before correcting. Clearly that would be seen as a wind-up, ditto the 'British Lions' in rugby union. And at least one prominent poster on this thread gets annoyed at references to 'the South', even though he must realise it's widely used in Northern Ireland.

Most of this is just pointless waffle.
As for terminology, the unionists I've encountered tend to say the 'Republic', or maybe 'Southern' Ireland, which is as about as polite as it gets.

The same, although I don't see the problem with Nige contradicting what some other IFA hack said at the last FIFA international board meeting. I doubt they had an earlier meeting to mandate the delegate. He may simply have expressed a personal view, or followed Onkel Sepp's lead.

As Blatter seems now simply to have changed his mind under gentle pressure after the Tevez/ Neuer incidents, the foreseeable future looks unnecessarily pessimistic. You could see it trailed in the next U-20 or u-21 competition, say.

According to the relevant thread about this on OWB, it was done to spite the FAI given its relative relevance to them!
And would expect nothing less.
Though to be fair to the IFA, no-one could possibly suggested they impacted on the machinations of FIFA/Bl*tter who are a law onto theselves.

As I say, you may call your country whatever you like, according to your political preferences/prejudices, just as I shall continue to call it what I like, according to mine.

That is, the authoritative body, FIFA, has mandated that the two teams shall be called "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". Fortunately, this also allows for convenient abbreviation, ROI and NI (not that this stops prats labouriously typing out "the North", or "Six Counties" etc, in order to avoid recognising even the very existence of NI, state or football team).


Anyhow, here's mine:
1. For 73 years from 1880, there was a Football Association ("Irish Football Association") whose team called itself "Ireland", entirely legitimately;
2. Meanwhile in 1921, a grouping broke away from the IFA, styling itself the "FAIFS" and its team "Irish Free State";
3. Nearly 30 years later on, the FAIFS elected to rename itself the FAI and unilaterally call its team "Ireland", following political developments within its own juridiction;
4. By 1953 FIFA, when confronted by the contradictory and confusing situation of two teams calling themselves "Ireland" entering the same World Cup, determined that the IFA must alter its name to "Northern Ireland" (for competition purposes only*), with the FAI to adopt the name "Republic of Ireland";
5. Subsequently the IFA continues to abide by the ruling, whereas the FAI resists doing so.

Hmm. Tell us something we don't know(Have highlighted the bold print if only to point more than a little hypocrisy by a certain poster, not unlike your good self!)? The record must be well worn out by now!

Don't know about all the English/Scottish youngsters playing for the North, though you'll be glad to know GR suggested elsewhere some time ago, they should all go to play for 'Ingerland, simply by virtue of being born there and having better, er, prospects!
Though you should have no problem with Gibson playing for Ireland/the South/Republic, as he's an Irish citizen!
You should try it sometime.....

Lastly if the two FA's can split, there's nothing in current logic to defy they can't reunite at some point....

[co. down green]

I don't know the percentage of youngsters who make the first approach, but it is most definitely NOT 100%. For example, both Kieran McKenna and Chris Baird have disclosed that they were approached first by the FAI.

Do you have a link to a Chris Baird interview saying he was approached by the FAI?

I've never heard of Kieran McKenna, but a quick search shows that he was born in London, so i'd have had no problems with him being approached to play for Ireland, if he ever was.

How would any approach made to this lad McKenna be different to the approach made to England u17 international Oliver Norwood or Ireland u16 international John (Johnny) Gorman by the IFA?

[EalingGreen]

So now you're a nationalist?? You need to change your terminology! Lol.

By drawing such a conclusion from Gather Round's simple assertion that having been born in NI, he is thus "Irish", it is clear that you are incapable of comprehending that it is possible to be Irish, without automatically being automatically being subject to any prescribed political stance.
I, for instance, am 100% Irish, having been born and brought up on the island of Ireland, to two Irish parents who themselves were long of Irish stock.
The fact that my politics are Unionist, so that I want my own particular part of the island (NI) to continue to be part of the UK, does not change that simple fact.
Just as, for example, your average Dubliner is still 100% Irish, even since his country decided to join the Common Market/EU. That is, whilst he is Irish and European, I am also Irish and European (and British).

P.S. I know a Unionist from NI who is also a Republican! That is, he wants NI to remain within the UK, but with the hereditary Monarchy replaced by an elected President. (Her Madge's status doesn't bother me personally, but each to his own, I guess)

Don't know about all the English/Scottish youngsters playing for the North, though you'll be glad to know GR suggested elsewhere some time ago, they should all go to play for 'Ingerland, simply by virtue of being born there and having better, er, prospects!

Once again, there is no prescribed orthodoxy for NI football fans, either. GR and I agree on a number of issues, but disagree on others. "C'est la vie", as our cheese-eating/handballing French fellow Europeans might say...

Though you should have no problem with Gibson playing for Ireland/the South/Republic, as he's an Irish citizen!

Just as there are Brazilian-born footballers who are (entirely legitimately) Qatari citizens but who may not represent the Qatari FA unless they also have a Qatari parent/grandparent (or have lived in Qatar for a qualifying period), then I do not accept that Irish citizens like Gibson or Kearns should be permitted to represent the FAI, unless they may point to a parent/grandparent of their own from the Republic, like eg Duffy or Wilson, or have resided there.

Lastly if the two FA's can split, there's nothing in current logic to defy they can't reunite at some point....

There are dozens of precedents for a country splitting up to form two (or more) Football Associations, hence international teams.
However, there is NO precedent for two separate countries merging their two Associations to form one international football team, whilst remaioning politically independent of each other.
Moreover, "logic" suggest that any countries which tried it would not be permitted to do so by FIFA, since all the other Member Associations would be likely to protest that the merged entity was thereby gaining an unfair advantage.

Therefore, if you hope to see a single Irish international football team, then you'd better plan on living a very long time, for without an independent, united Irish state, it ain't gonna happen. And even then, there is absolutely no guarantee of that happening, as these guys can attest:
http://www.fifa.com//associations/as...mac/index.html
http://www.fifa.com//associations/as...hkg/index.html

P.S. If, of course, the good people of the Republic were to see the error of their ways* and rejoin the United Kingdom, then I have no doubt they might also rejoin the IFA ("Original and Best" (c) ), thereby getting another chance to 'live the dream'...

* - Perhaps following a visit by Her Gracious Majesty and subsequent readmission to the Commonwealth?

[EalingGreen]

Do you have a link to a Chris Baird interview saying he was approached by the FAI?

No, not to hand. Iirc correctly, he mentioned it in an interview (soon after he shot to prominence with Southampton in the 2003 FA Cup Final?), that he had been approached by the FAI, but having already played for NI at under age level etc, he wasn't interested.
And from this 2008 quotation which I can find quickly, he doesn't ever seem to have regretted his choice:
"The support over the past few years has been unbelievable. A full house at Windsor makes as much noise as 30,000 fans and that type of support makes you want to work even harder on the pitch. Sometimes during a break in play during a game at Windsor the players just look around at the whole ground doing the 'bouncy' and it's an absolutely amazing sight. Support like that really does make a difference".
I guess Rasharkin GAC's loss was NI's (and Chris's) gain!

I've never heard of Kieran McKenna, but a quick search shows that he was born in London, so i'd have had no problems with him being approached to play for Ireland, if he ever was.

McKenna's case is a bit analgous to eg Paul McGrath, in that he (McKenna) was also born in London, in his case to NI parents, who moved back to NI when he was very young. Consequently, he was brought up and educated in Enniskillen, represented Fermanagh and NI in various youth tournaments etc, eventually getting to captain the NI U-21 team (and almost make the Spurs 1st team squad), before injury forced him to retire.
He most certainly mentioned that he had been approached at some stage by the FAI, but had declined their invitation. I do not know whether he has a parent/ grandparent from the ROI.

How would any approach made to this lad McKenna be different to the approach made to England u17 international Oliver Norwood or Ireland u16 international John (Johnny) Gorman by the IFA?

Since all three (McKenna, Gorman and Norwood) have at least one parent/grandparent from NI, all three are equally entitled to represent NI. Though even had McKenna not been so qualified/blessed, he would alternatively have been eligible for NI on the basis of his UK nationality, alongside his NI residence.
Whereas I have no knowledge of either Norwood or McKenna having a parent/grandparent from the ROI, therefore I cannot see how, having been born in GB, they also qualify for the ROI.
Gorman is different, since he has ancestry from both sides of the Irish border. Consequently, the FAI was entirely entitled to select him for their under-age teams, before he changed his mind and elected to represent NI. Of course, following the latest Rule change by FIFA on eligibility, like Ollie Norwood*, he is now irreversibly committed to NI, wise lad.

* - From his posts on OWC, it seems Ollie's Dad is just as pleased with his choice as the lad himself!

[ArdeeBhoy]

By drawing such a conclusion from Gather Round's simple assertion that having been born in NI, he is thus "Irish", it is clear that you are incapable of comprehending that it is possible to be Irish, without automatically being automatically being subject to any prescribed political stance.
I, for instance, am 100% Irish, having been born and brought up on the island of Ireland, to two Irish parents who themselves were long of Irish stock.
The fact that my politics are Unionist, so that I want my own particular part of the island (NI) to continue to be part of the UK, does not change that simple fact.
Just as, for example, your average Dubliner is still 100% Irish, even since his country decided to join the Common Market/EU. That is, whilst he is Irish and European, I am also Irish and European (and British).

P.S. I know a Unionist from NI who is also a Republican! That is, he wants NI to remain within the UK, but with the hereditary Monarchy replaced by an elected President. (Her Madge's status doesn't bother me personally, but each to his own, I guess)

I have no problem with anyone calling themselves Irish. Even if it was Paisley, Stone or Adair. Though I doubt any of them would want to especially claim or acknowledge it.
It's just the Irish and British nonsense, unless there's mixed parentage.

Just as there are Brazilian-born footballers who are (entirely legitimately) Qatari citizens but who may not represent the Qatari FA unless they also have a Qatari parent/grandparent (or have lived in Qatar for a qualifying period), then I do not accept that Irish citizens like Gibson or Kearns should be permitted to represent the FAI, unless they may point to a parent/grandparent of their own from the Republic, like eg Duffy or Wilson, or have resided there.

Er, the GFA. It makes you 'Irish' and thus them also.....
You can't have it both ways!!! And you too now could have played, er, for the new Ireland team!!

There are dozens of precedents for a country splitting up to form two (or more) Football Associations, hence international teams.
However, there is NO precedent for two separate countries merging their two Associations to form one international football team, whilst remaioning politically independent of each other.
Moreover, "logic" suggest that any countries which tried it would not be permitted to do so by FIFA, since all the other Member Associations would be likely to protest that the merged entity was thereby gaining an unfair advantage.

Therefore, if you hope to see a single Irish international football team, then you'd better plan on living a very long time, for without an independent, united Irish state, it ain't gonna happen.

P.S. If, of course, the good people of the Republic were to see the error of their ways and rejoin the United Kingdom, then I have no doubt they might also rejoin the IFA ("Original and Best" (c) ), thereby getting another chance to 'live the dream'...

Ha. Re-joining the Ugly K is unlikely, but the Commonwealth would even be worth it, if it meant a UI team, just to prove a point!
Couldn't see most other countries complaining, as it would one less team in competition.....

Don't know about the other precedent you cite but will take your word for now!

[Predator]

The problem with eg Gibson or Kearns, is that they do not have a parent/grandparent from the Republic (unlike, say, Duffy or Wilson).

I strongly suggest that you re-read the statutes concerning eligibility a little closer and once you have done so, you can report back to OWC and enlighten some of them (thankfully there are quite a few who accept the reality), since so many on there seem to hold your views in such high esteem. These players do not require grandparents or parents from Ireland, since they were born on the island of Ireland and have presumably always held Irish nationality.

The grandparentage thing comes into effect when a player has a nationality which entitles him to play for more than one association (eg British); it is a requirement in addition to holding the appropriate nationality. Similarly, if they held one nationality and then later assumed a new nationality entitling them to play for another association, then they would be required to have parents or grandparents that were born on the territory of the association they wish to represent (or to have lived there for 5 years) - such is the case with Qatari Brazilians (a comparison of yours which doesn't quite fit).

Another thing, maybe you'd like to post your speculative theory concerning the issue on here? I'm sure you'll get some constructive criticism which you can play with.

[The Fly]

Just as there are Brazilian-born footballers who are (entirely legitimately) Qatari citizens but who may not represent the Qatari FA unless they also have a Qatari parent/grandparent (or have lived in Qatar for a qualifying period), then I do not accept that Irish citizens like Gibson or Kearns should be permitted to represent the FAI, unless they may point to a parent/grandparent of their own from the Republic, like eg Duffy or Wilson, or have resided there.

Your analogy suffers from an obvious flaw.

The Qatari state does not confer automatic citizenship of Qatar, onto the entire population of Brazil.

Trying to draw any comparison between those now 'infamous' Brazilians representing Qatar in international football, and Irish citizens from Northern Ireland representing the Republic of Ireland in the same arena, is frankly ridiculous!

[DannyInvincible]

Mope Alert! In 1953, the four British Associations only constituted a small minority of FIFA Members - FIFA could quite easily have ignored/outvoted them, had it wished.

Bull**** alert? Not wishing to get too involved in a dispute over the history of FIFA as I certainly can't call myself an expert, but don't the four respective British associations make up the International Football Association Board (IFAB) along with FIFA; each retaining an individual vote since 1958 while the other two hundred or so associations are accorded a mere four votes between them? In other words, the British associations exercise, and always have exercised, a disproportionate level of power. Since 1958, six votes have been required to carry any IFAB motion, contrary to your factually incorrect assertion in post #1106 that in the case of a 4-4 tie, the FIFA chairman will cast the deciding vote. Prior to 1958 and subsequent to FIFA joining in 1913, the voting was weighted even further in favour of the British associations with the four of them possessing two votes each and FIFA also possessing two votes with eight votes needed to carry a motion, meaning the British associations could pass any motion they wished if they all voted together, even if FIFA objected. How FIFA might have ignored or outvoted such obvious and domineering control, I'm not sure. Maybe you can help me get to grips with the idea...

5. Subsequently the IFA continues to abide by the ruling, whereas the FAI resists doing so.

Counter to your grave accusation - - the FAI often refers to the Irish team as the "Republic of Ireland" and always as such in official competition. Naturally because FIFA have stipulated they do so.

You mention that the IFA has "declined" to refer to its representative team as "Ireland" in friendlies since 1980. Err, kudos to them for demonstrating such tremendous restraint... Why would the IFA still wish to refer to their team as "Ireland" anyway despite it quite obviously representing a constituent country of the UK going by the name of "Northern Ireland", as opposed to the state that actually does go by the name of "Ireland"? It would be rather disingenuous for the IFA to continue using the name "Ireland", whether the FAIFS were the "break-aways" or not. Wasn't it in 1950 that FIFA restricted the IFA from calling up Irish nationals? Referring to the team as "Ireland" at any point after after that date surely makes little sense.

Anyway, is it all that big a deal? I don't know why you're getting so wound up and taking offence from the fact that people in Ireland will refer to the national representative team of Ireland as "Ireland". It's not meant as a subtle gibe or dig towards the IFA or at Northern Ireland's expense or existence, or whatever you take it to be. Of course, I'm well aware of the rationale behind its origin, but here we are now in 2010; it's just the name of the country and I would think that it's used completely innocently in the vast majority of cases.

Every single one* of those young players has a parent or grandparent from NI, inc Norwood. Therefore, SB/IFA are perfectly entitled to approach them to persuade them to play for NI. Similarly, the English FA is perfectly entitled to approach any young NI-born player who has an English parent/grandparent, to ask them to play for England.
The problem with eg Gibson or Kearns, is that they do not have a parent/grandparent from the Republic (unlike, say, Duffy or Wilson).

* - Including, incidentally, Steve Beaglehole's own son, Shamus [sic]

Why do you persist with this misinformed and ignorant rubbish when the error of your ways has been pointed out to you time and time again? The "problem" is, EG, that the like of Gibson is automatically Irish by birthright whereas even Norwood only qualifies to play for Northern Ireland through a mere grand-parental link, if I'm not mistaken. One could argue that the birthright of Gibson to Irishness would take precedence to any claim of Norwood's to "Northern Irishness" if there was some table for ranking the relative strengths of various modes of eligibility drawn up. (Of course, such a proposition sounds utterly daft as all modes have the identical effect ultimately, but bear with me for the sake of debate.) The fact that Norwood's eligibility to play for Northern Ireland spires from article 16.1.(c), whilst Gibson's eligibility is derived from the preceding article 15.1 is surely indicative of which mode takes primacy. The one thing you certainly can't say is that Norwood's mode of eligibility is somehow stronger or more valid than Gibson's. Therefore, taking all this into consideration, the FAI are perfectly entitled to approach the likes of Gibson to persuade him to play for us if they so wish, just as the IFA are entitled to approach Norwood and persuade him to play for them, or even just as the FAI were entitled to approach Robbie Keane and persuade him to play for us. Chew on that for a while...

I don't know the percentage of youngsters who make the first approach, but it is most definitely NOT 100%. For example, both Kieran McKenna and Chris Baird have disclosed that they were approached first by the FAI. This is in direct contradiction of the assurance given to Jim Boyce by the FAI some time around 1995 (can't find link just now).

What's the big deal if they'd have been perfectly entitled to play for us anyway? The FAI should be expanding its potential pool of players with confidence and vigour, just as, I'm sure, you hope the IFA do the same. I don't see the supposed shame or embarrassment in offering an Irish citizen an opportunity to play for us. The protestations over this particular aspect of the debate have particularly baffled me. Of what purpose do they serve, other than to help bolster the warped and comical notion that the FAI are out snatching defenceless northern children against their will?

What exactly was this supposed assurance given to Jim Boyce in 1995, by the way? I'd appreciate if you did root out that link actually, because I didn't realise this whole thing was even an issue with the IFA in 1995.

[Supreme feet]

Been trying to clarify this whole issue in my own head. I was thinking that 'maybe, just maybe the Northern posters have a point here', with the distiction being made that the FAI represents only the territory within the existing borders of the Republic of Ireland. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how simple this really is.

From FAI.ie:

http://www.fai.ie/index.php?option=c...=75&Itemid=139

The Football Association of Ireland is the governing body of football in Ireland.

From Article 2 of Bunreacht na hEireann:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...xHwwcn-Ri6-JIw

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born on the Island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation.

Article 15 of FIFA statutes:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe..._072008_en.pdf

Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent
on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the
representative teams of the Association of that country.[/B]

Think it's pretty clear-cut.

[ifk101]

Even without reading the eligibility statutes and in a general context, FIFA employs a negative stance to political interference in football. International football is organised competition between nations not states (which are political creations).

Given that all peoples of the Island of Ireland define themselves as Irish, for example

I, for instance, am 100% Irish, having been born and brought up on the island of Ireland, to two Irish parents who themselves were long of Irish stock.The fact that my politics are Unionist, so that I want my own particular part of the island (NI) to continue to be part of the UK, does not change that simple fact.

, does the possibility exist that CAS will rule a merger of the two associations? After all why should the Irish nation have two international football teams?

[co. down green]

No, not to hand. Iirc correctly, he mentioned it in an interview (soon after he shot to prominence with Southampton in the 2003 FA Cup Final?), that he had been approached by the FAI, but having already played for NI at under age level etc, he wasn't interested.

McKenna's case is a bit analgous to eg Paul McGrath, in that he (McKenna) was also born in London, in his case to NI parents, who moved back to NI when he was very young. Consequently, he was brought up and educated in Enniskillen, represented Fermanagh and NI in various youth tournaments etc, eventually getting to captain the NI U-21 team (and almost make the Spurs 1st team squad), before injury forced him to retire.
He most certainly mentioned that he had been approached at some stage by the FAI, but had declined their invitation. I do not know whether he has a parent/ grandparent from the ROI.

So you actually have no idea whether either player was ever approached by the FAI?

[DannyInvincible]

Been trying to clarify this whole issue in my own head. I was thinking that 'maybe, just maybe the Northern posters have a point here', with the distiction being made that the FAI represents only the territory within the existing borders of the Republic of Ireland. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how simple this really is.

At some point between 8:14 and 8:20, I slyly note you managed to grasp it. :P

Of course, you're correct; it's very straightforward. Appeals to recognise or take account of association territory or jurisdiction in this instance in order to try and impose a restriction upon certain nationals from representing their nation are haplessly misguided given the fact that article 15 mentions absolutely nothing about association territory or jurisdiction being necessary in establishing eligibility. Nor does it mention anything about parentage or grand-parentage. Rather, it simply raises a player's nationality as the sole criterion upon which eligibility is dependent, just so long as that nationality is not dependent on residence in a certain country. This is the case for northern-born Irish nationals. Their Irish nationality is not dependent on residence in Ireland, it having been permanent since birth.

Beyond that, due to the fact that there appeared to be disagreement from certain NI fans as to which article actually applied, even after the meaning and effect of article 15 was spelled out for them - bizarrely and inexplicably, 'EalingGreen', in his deluded state of being, still continues consistently to make references to territory, parentage and grand-parentage being fundamental to the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals - I posted a while back a lengthy summation on why each of the other articles relating to eligibility don't actually apply in the case of northern-born Irish nationals representing Ireland. It's here if you're interested.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Once again, props to DannyI, The Fly and Predator, amongst others for your contributions above. Rather than thanking every individual post!
Whilst ifk's suggestion is an excellent & amusing one, if only a little 'far-fetched', sadly.