Player eligibility row

[EalingGreen]

I would agree that it looks inconsistent in its application,

Thank you for at least having the integrity to acknowledge that I may have a point (whether that point be compelling, or not). It would be nice if some of the other posters on this Board showed the same grace

but then its only one of a number of inconsistencies in FIFA's history

I'm not affected/bothered by the others, nor am I likely to know much (anything?) about such anomalies; therefore it must be up to those who are, to try to overturn them.

which I need not remind you include the "home nations" status as representatives in their own right.

The basic reason why the four British Associations had their privileged status entrenched in FIFA's statutes was because it was in return for their baling FIFA out of bankruptcy after WWII. That is, there may not have been a FIFA had it not been for the Brits.
Whereas the Irish anomaly stems not from anything the FAI has done for FIFA, but rather from the political actions of an external body (Irish Government) over which neither FIFA nor any of its Members* have any influence.

* - Including most notably the IFA

[OneRedArmy]

So we've agreed that there are inconsistencies in the way FIFA apply its rules that favour NI in one case and RoI in t'other.

Lets agree to offset them, you'll not have to travel to Wembley every time you want to support your country and we'll continue to trawl the streets of Derry for potential converts.

Result.

[The Fly]

1. A child is born and brought up in NI to Polish parents and the FAI wants to cap him…2. Somewhere in eg Estonia, a child is born and given a Russian name by his ethnic Russian parents, grows up speaking Russian, living in a Russian enclave and being educated in Russian

Is this a cover version of ‘In the ghetto’?

............."Thank You, Thank You Very Much!"

[co. down green]

No, I have seen it credibly reported that the FAI made the initial approach to both Baird and McKenna.

I cannot easily or quickly bring those reports to hand and have neither the time nor the inclination to root them out.

Therefore you'll either have to believe me, or believe that I am just making it all up.

Either way, I couldn't give a flying fcuk.

Just as i thought, man down the pub told you !

[Mr_Parker]

No, I have seen it credibly reported that the FAI made the initial approach to both Baird and McKenna.

I cannot easily or quickly bring those reports to hand and have neither the time nor the inclination to root them out.

Therefore you'll either have to believe me, or believe that I am just making it all up.

Either way, I couldn't give a flying fcuk.

I can tell you that you are 100% wrong on at least one of them.

[EalingGreen]

I said it was a state of mind, not that its imaginary or made up. The point was to highlight that there's a world of difference when comparing a country that is able to issue passports and is recognised by the UN as a state, versus a consituent part of another state.

The Palestine FA is a Member Association of FIFA, with its own international team, yet there is no legally/internationally recognised Palestinean State, capable of issuing its own Passports. Ditto Hong Kong, Macau and the Faroes.
Whereas by contrast, Qatar and Cape Verde are both entirely legitimate nation states as per UN etc, perfectly entitled to give recognised Passports to whomsoever they like.
Regardless, FIFA abrogates to itself the right to recognise (or not) such States and their powers of self-determination, inc the validity of their passports. Unfortunately, when they had a problem with Qatar and Cape Verde, their solution had the (presumably unforeseen) consequence of entrenching the advantage of another Member Association (FAI), to the direct detriment of another (IFA), with this latter having done nothing wrong.

It was you who used the word inconsistent. The fact that other nations haven't objected doesn't mean it isn't inconsistent.

And it quite patently is inconsistent. Just like the RoI/NI eligibility situation. The only difference is that you support one inconsistency (or to use your/FIFA language "special position") and don't like the other.

The difference between eg the IFAB anomaly, and the Irish Passport anomaly is that the former is acceptable to all FIFA Member Associations, whereas the latter is not.

[EalingGreen]

So we've agreed that there are inconsistencies in the way FIFA apply its rules that favour NI in one case and RoI in t'other.

There are any number of anomalies in the way FIFA manages its affairs. However, the key difference between the two under discussion (4 UK teams and FAI eligibility advantage) is that the four British Associations were granted their privilege in return for saving FIFA from bankruptcy.
Whereas neither the Irish Government nor the FAI did anything for FIFA to earn their privilege.

Lets agree to offset them, you'll not have to travel to Wembley every time you want to support your country and we'll continue to trawl the streets of Derry for potential converts.

Result.

Would that be a Gentlemens' Agreement? If so, no thanks - we lost out the last time we trusted someone over one of those...

Anyhow, I have no more desire to see a single UK team than I have a single Irish team.

P.S. If there were to be a single UK team, might we not see its new home stadium in your neck of the woods??

[francesco_1]

Should we, for the sake of the game, and in the genuine spirit of fairness quit poaching their players?

NO

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except we're not poaching their players......

[OneRedArmy]

There are any number of anomalies in the way FIFA manages its affairs. However, the key difference between the two under discussion (4 UK teams and FAI eligibility advantage) is that the four British Associations were granted their privilege in return for saving FIFA from bankruptcy.
Whereas neither the Irish Government nor the FAI did anything for FIFA to earn their privilege.

So this is what it boils down to?! NI can benefit from an inconsistency in the application of rules whilst the RoI can't because of an unrelated event 60 odd years ago?!

I find it hard to believe Northern Ireland "saved" FIFA (I find it even harder to believe it's in any way relevant). When you factor in the level to which FIFA facilitated Harry Cavan feathering his own bed (see "Foul" for more info), I'd say on balance the IFA was a taker than a giver.

Anyhow, I have no more desire to see a single UK team than I have a single Irish team.

and likewise many Northern Ireland born Irishmen don't have any desire to play for the North. And thanks to FIFA, both get accommodated.

P.S. If there were to be a single UK team, might we not see its new home stadium in your neck of the woods??

If it gets Derry City a new ground I'm all for it.

[janeymac]

There are any number of anomalies in the way FIFA manages its affairs. However, the key difference between the two under discussion (4 UK teams and FAI eligibility advantage) is that the four British Associations were granted their privilege in return for saving FIFA from bankruptcy.
Whereas neither the Irish Government nor the FAI did anything for FIFA to earn their privilege.

Would that be a Gentlemens' Agreement? If so, no thanks - we lost out the last time we trusted someone over one of those...

Anyhow, I have no more desire to see a single UK team than I have a single Irish team.

P.S. If there were to be a single UK team, might we not see its new home stadium in your neck of the woods??

Its no wonder FIFA have sided with the FAI over this if the IFA are still banging on about bailing FIFA out after the war. I presume they are delaying the announcement until after the marching season.

[ArdeeBhoy]

"I would never repudiate the fact that I am an Irishman" - Ian Paisley, Sunday Life, June 1991.

Couldn't you find a more recent one?? Clearly there's a selective memory about some of his past comments about some of his, 'fellow' Irish!

Would you tell eg a born-and-bred Glaswegian that he cannot be both Scottish and British?

Yes! And plenty who are enlightened beyond a 'slave' mentality would happily welcome it. However being neither Scottish or British,that's up to them.

I find it hard to believe that you lack the basic intelligence, since it is such a simple concept. Perhaps you have such an ingrained sense of anti-Britishness that you are unable to accommodate such a radical idea? Or is it that deep down you do understand it, but cannot bring yourself to admit it publicly (presumably on the basis that it rather tears the arse out of several other of your dearly held prejudices)?

Anyhow, have you forgotten what it states in the GFA, which you otherwise cite approvingly (see The Fly, post #1054)?
Constitutional Issues part 1:

The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish
Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-
Irish Agreement, they will:

...(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to
identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they
may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both

The GFA does NOT "make me Irish". On the basis that I was born and brought up in Ireland, I was Irish long before the GFA was ever even thought of.

Actually, when it comes to being both British and Irish, I can.

So you are now denying the GFA Statement confirms this?

Prior to this and even now in the main, despite yer exortations, still not too many unionists are claiming their Irish heritage....
And given the last time I was in Beal-feirste, certainly few of the locals were, given their flags on display, which barely acknowledged the North, let alone being even in the remotest 'Irish'.

Ever since the playing days of my fellow Fermanaghman, Harry Chatton, it is clear I could have represented the FAI team, neither he nor I needed the GFA to make it so. (And that is quite aside from the fact of my having a Tipperary grandmother and a Leitrim grandfather, though as I have said elsewhere, I wouldn't swap five minutes as substitute for NI in a five goal hammering, for 100 ROI caps and a World Cup winner's medal)

Given neither are even remotely likely, maybe you should reflect on how, er, proud your ancestors would be....

ROI membership of the Commonwealth would offer no chance of a single Irish international team, just as eg membership of the EU offers no prospect of a single European international team.

And the Commonwealth is now the EU??? WTF?

We are often told by proponents of a single Irish team that such a team would be more competitive than two separate teams, therefore more likely to qualify for WC or Euro Finals etc. If so (and I don't necessarily accept it myself), then those other teams which now found it harder to qualify themselves if in the same Group as "Ireland", would likely feel miffed.

Given you keep telling us this will never happen, am surprised you are now acknowledging the concept!!!

Occasionally on another board I've discussed this with a fellow poster from here. He's Irish (from Cork) but has lived abroad, currently in Sweden but mainly Netherlands, since early childhood. A pretty common situation, as you know. He thinks, quite reasonably, that he should have a vote in Irish elections, in parallel with what happens in other countries. But of course if he gets a vote, then potentially I- and hundreds of thousands of others up North- could do, and God knows who we'd drag in...

EG & you keep telling us you're Irish, so it would 'drag' in the population of, er, Ireland!!!
Especially as you claim you're, er, "concerned"?

I think I accused Ardee Bhoy of paranoia, or similar.

Irony alert, part 473

I've always been a republican (usually saying 'abolitionist' to avoid confusion with our shinner friends). I mean, I like that there's a republic in Ireland. It'd be even better if there were two.

Yeah, right. Like anyone'd believe that.
Bad humour alert

And could you stop doing that LOL thing? If we think it’s funny, we’ll tell you.

Irony alert, mocking certain pathetic (& pointless) attempts at 'humour' elsewhere, which should be confined to the trash bin of history!
As in, take a hint FFS.

How is this relevant? The entire British economy is centralised and thus dominated by/ from London.
I don't deny NI's structural problems, but they aren't quite as stark as you suggest.
For example- most obviously- we are only about 2.5% of the population of Britain, thus pretty small beer. And while 70% of the local economy is public sector, it's basically the same in Wales.

Look up the definition of 'colonial outpost', eg. The Falklands, Gibraltar etc That's why it's relevant.
And ultimately why Ireland has resisted the North's financial 'black hole', as it's usually had more than enough of its own monetary issues due to being a far smaller economy.

As opposed to your 100+ semi-coherent posts on the thread, you mean? If you're not interested, don't read them, and obviously don't reply!

Pomposity alert! Not to mention a major case of Hypocrisy?
Or possible irony? Lol.

Still doesn't justify the repeated pointless waffle though.

The IFA's basis for voting had nothing to do with the FAI. Or is this just another of your ****-takes?

Merely relaying the news from the darker side, where the OWB constituency had a collective fit of the giggles about this theory. Which was noticable for not being their usual po-faced selves.

Not true. I've always suggested a personal preference that qualification for international football should be basically through an individual's residence, not his parent or grandparent's birthplace.
So, in the example I mentioned above in reply to Co Down Green, Lee Hodson (Watford defender, aged 19, from Watford) is clearly English. We (IFA) are just exploiting his ancestry. If he chooses to play for us, on the strength of one season in the Champ, he'll likely go straight into the first team squad. Whereas with England, he'd get U-21 caps at best.

'Selective' Amnesia alert. You either want them to play or you don't?

Your "current logic" fails to grasp that they're currently in two different countries, with no comparable situation anywhere else in the World.

Hmm. Take it you noticed the Deutschland example above?
And that was two halves of the same country, ideologically far more different that even the most ardent republicans and loyalists.

Am I allowed one of those 'Lol' things??

It doesn't. Whatever the GFA's worth and significance, it doesn't make EG or me Irish. We've always been Irish.

So you no longer claim to be British? When are you getting Irish citizenship??

Picking Darron Gibson no more makes the FAI the governing body in Derry, than giving Liam Lawrence the place alongside him puts them in charge in Sherwood Forest.

Eh?

"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" no longer applies- it was replaced following a referendum a few years ago in which nearly 80% of voters denied that birthright/ nationhood to other Irish-born children in future. Sorry to labour the point, but it's a bit puzzling how many of you lot think just quoting from the Constitution clinches everything.

Next you'll be telling us the Brits (& the rest of the EU) also give citizenship to everyone born in their territories.
Anyway, we've already said, we're preparing the ground for a large influx of dysfunctional aliens with a penchant for orange.....

Er, there are two Irish nations. Anyway, FIFA seem(ed) to manage quite well with two or three Korean, Danish, German teams etc. etc. Not to mention four from Britain.

Denmark has 2 teams?? And the Isle Of Man, now??

[DannyInvincible]

Denmark has 2 teams??

The Faroe Islands are an autonomous region of Denmark.

[DannyInvincible]

The GFA does NOT "make me Irish". On the basis that I was born and brought up in Ireland, I was Irish long before the GFA was ever even thought of.

Not to deny you your inherent and long-standing sense of Irishness - and I'm genuinely not attempting to cause offence or have a dig here by suggesting there's an "official Irish" and what you sense to be Irish - but, surely, let's be honest that there is a distinction between your concept and the status of Irishness accorded to persons of Irish nationality, at least on a legal-constitutional basis. You're referring to what 'OneRedArmy' astutely refers to as a "state of mind" whilst the Good Friday Agreement refers to and invokes the latter. You might even refer to this "state of mind" as "Northern Irish", to be more accurate, seeing as you view the British and not the Irish nation as the custodian of your identity and interests, right?

just as eg membership of the EU offers no prospect of a single European international team.

Not yet anyway...

For what seems like the nth. time, let me restate my consistently held position, as outlined here and elsewhere.
1. Until the recent definitive* statement by FIFA, I felt that this issue was capable of going either way (IFA or FAI);
2. Since that statement, I have accepted FIFA's stance (i.e. FAI permitted to select NI-born players, outwith the usual parentage/residence criteria);
3. My acceptance that this is the case should not be confused with my personal opinion that it ought not to be the case (i.e. I feel that FIFA has erred in interpreting/applying its regulations etc).
Simple enough?

* - Subject to appeal to CAS etc

You see, the problem with your position is that it isn't actually that simple at all. In fact, points two and three directly contradict one another. Actually, point three appears to even contradict itself. I'd imagine that's why you have to keep re-stating it. You genuinely confuse people. How can you accept FIFA's stance and believe that the FAI are permitted to select northern-born Irish nationals if you simultaneously believe that FIFA are erring in their interpretation or application of their own rules? If you admitted that FIFA were interpreting their rules correctly, but that your opinion was that these rules required amending in the interests of what you view to be fair and just, people would have a lot less trouble taking you seriously. For a start, you wouldn't come across as so stubbornly insincere/confused.

I'm pretty sure honesty would be appreciated and whilst we might have different views and perspectives on what might be "fair" here and whatnot, from my experience, there is some sympathy on this board for the notion that the IFA have the potential to suffer to quite a significant degree as regards their expenditure on youth development due to the FIFA statutes and that maybe some change could be made somewhere - be that to FIFA's rules or to the FAI's policy - to "rectify" this apparent injustice. Coming across as an intolerant curmudgeon does nothing to help your case. You have to admit, first and foremost, that the rules as they currently stand unquestionably establish eligibility for northern-born Irish nationals, thus permitting the FAI's selection of such players. Otherwise you're just deluding yourself, but I suppose blind loyalty dictates that you gotta do what you gotta do...

The same applies to the IFA. Engaging in vindictive legal proceedings against the FAI is not conducive to creating an atmosphere where the FAI might volunteer something of substance to assuage IFA grievances. Personally, I wouldn't object to the idea of the FAI funding their own training camps in nationalist areas within NI, but I suppose you'd throw it out the window as a preposterous suggestion... The thing is, also, that northern-born kids who would start out playing under the auspices of the FAI, benefiting from their training camps and such or whatever, could still potentially make a switch to NI a few years down the line.

But consider these two possible future scenarios:
1. A child is born and brought up in NI to Polish parents and the FAI wants to cap him. Since the latest changes to the Irish Constitution, he is not automatically entitled to Irish nationality from birth (nor his parents/grandparents, obviously), therefore the FAI should not be permitted to select him. Meanwhile, they could, presumably, select eg Mark Lawrenson's English born-and-bred nephew, who may be about as "Irish" as David Cameron;
2. Somewhere in eg Estonia, a child is born and given a Russian name by his ethnic Russian parents, grows up speaking Russian, living in a Russian enclave and being educated in Russian. Yet if none of his parents/grandparents was born in Russia/USSR, he will only be entitled to play for Estonia, not "his" country, Russia.

Imo, by using the "Nationality from Birth" test to get around the Brazil/Qatari problem, FIFA has been caught out by the Irish nationality anomaly and risks either being similarly caught out by future anomalies, or proves inconsistent by refusing to apply it to cases analogous to that of eg Estonia/Russia (above).

I'm not sure what the relevance of either of these scenarios is seeing as neither bear any relation to the issue here. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the first. Such a player wouldn't be eligible to represent Ireland - you're correct - but what of it? It's not an issue. I don't think anyone is arguing that he should be eligible. Or is that you're arguing he should be eligible if their was to be some consistency demonstrated in something here? I'm genuinely not sure. There is no anomaly there and everything is consistent with the meaning Irish nationality law has for the application of FIFA's eligibility rules here. I'll assume the reference to Mark Lawrenson's nephew is a joke. Although I just can't be sure as I'm not certain how to take you. Is it supposed to be an analogous comparison to something?

As for the second, it most certainly isn't analogous to the Irish situation, to the best of my limited knowledge anyway. I admit, haven't a clue what the exact legal status is of Estonian-born ethnic/cultural Russians, if they have any distinct legal status at all, but I'm not aware that Russia offers permanent citizenship by simple virtue of their birth alone. I'm only basing that on my belief that Ireland's nationality laws are globally unique, having attempted to do a bit of research on any possible analogous situations a few months ago and having turned up nothing, but maybe I didn't look hard enough. Mind you, I noted your staunch objection on OWC recently to North Korean nationals born in Japan representing North Korea. I can't say that your argument appeared anything but absurd to me. Anyway, back to the Estonian example you've raised. If Russia did offer such legal recognition in the vein of which I mention above, which is the fundamental element here - stop pretending you don't see it - that would be analogous and I'm sure we'd see Estonian-born ethnic/cultural Russians representing Russia if they were able and talented enough to do so, as that would be entirely within the scope of article 15.

By the way, why do you suspect FIFA have been "caught out"? Caught out by themselves, is it?

You misunderstand the remit of the IFAB, which is to determine the playing rules of the game only (eg offside, substitutes, goalline technology etc) i.e. it plays no part whatever in the Constitutional governance of FIFA (inc international eligibility criteria).

(Incidentally, the other 202 Member Associations must presumably be happy enough with the four British Associations' special position on the IFAB, since it is open to them to change it with a simple vote at Congress etc)

I see. They must wield an extraordinary amount of influence via other methods then so?

[DannyInvincible]

Actually, just on that hypothetical NI-born kid of Polish parents, he might be eligible to play for us via article 17(a). After all, Alex Bruce seems to be eligible to play for us via article 17(c), although, as I've discussed with you earlier in this thread, I don't see how the text, if it's to be read literally, actually generates Bruce's eligibility. I actually do think the IFA would have a serious case in this instance, unless FIFA do interpret the FAI's territory as occupying the whole island.

FIFA mandates the FAI to use the title "ROI" for all official purposes, such as Match Programmes: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BIS_R7_5YV...eland+Away.jpg
However, I was merely pointing out that when they can get away with it (eg own website), the FAI tries to deny it. This is disingenuous imo.

Well, having had a look at the website, they do appear to use "Republic of Ireland" in fixture lists and article texts, whilst using "Ireland" in the team's crest, page headings and headlines. (Although, outside of competition, I'm pretty sure they could use "Idi Amin's Uganda" if they wanted...) It's not that disingenuous, surely, given that "Ireland" is actually the full title of the state they represent.

If* either Association has the right to use the name "Ireland", it must be the IFA, since we were the original Ireland, as reflected in FIFA's determination in 1953.

You can't say, if either association has the right to use the name, it logically follows that it must be the IFA simply because they were the original bearer of the name. Circumstances change over time. Wouldn't that be like, say, the Czech Republic putting forward some absurd argument that if anyone had the right to continue using the name "Czechoslovakia", it would be them, as ridiculous and unlikely as that sounds? It would only serve to give the incorrect impression in a contemporary context. On the other hand, the FAI using "Ireland" doesn't give an incorrect impression at all.

Er, we don't, which is why we no longer use it (Duh!).

Fine. It's just you stated that the IFA "declined" to use it, as if to suggest the IFA were actively opting against what might otherwise have been a realistic possibility, or were restraining themselves, even, from using the name in order to adhere to some FIFA stipulation. Why use it up to 1980 though? I find that puzzling, even if the IFA were the original bearers of the name. If you're going to accuse the FAI of insincerity, in spite of the fact it is the representative association of the state of Ireland, can you at least be consistent in argument and admit that the IFA's usage up until 1980 might just have been a bit disingenuous?

The reason why it so grates with NI fans etc is that the FAI calling themselves "Ireland" implies that theirs is somehow "the" (official) Irish team, with NI having some sort of lesser status.

Not at all. I must put your aggravation down to paranoia or something. The usage simply implies that they are the football governing body representing Ireland. You're reading into it too much.

To which my reply would be "P1ss Off" - ours is every bit as proud and legitimate a team as yours, with a longer history.

Of course. But who is denying it? Not a bulk of posters here and most certainly not the FAI. Wee bit of an insecurity complex maybe? I can congratulate you if that would ease your fears...

Besides, if as you say, the issue of naming is "no big deal", then why cannot the FAI and its fans etc accept the name "ROI" for their team, as mandated by the governing body?

Well, I don't think anyone here really is making a big deal about it. People will call their team "Ireland" out of convenience and because it's what they've always known, seeing as they, naturally enough, treat the team as being an "off-shoot" or sporting representative of the nation they know to be Ireland. It's just how it is. Nothing malicious intended by it, and when we must use "Republic of Ireland" - beyond the FAI happily doing so - I don't think anyone else really bats an eyelid; a nonchalant acceptance, you could say. You're the one who seems a bit irritated by it all.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Another fine post there DI, but whatever rational points you say, they'd never agree!
Not very 'Irish', hmm?

[ifk101]

There are any number of anomalies in the way FIFA manages its affairs. However, the key difference between the two under discussion (4 UK teams and FAI eligibility advantage) is that the four British Associations were granted their privilege in return for saving FIFA from bankruptcy.

Jingoism is alive and well. Rubbish btw. There's a quite simple reason as to why the 4 British associations were admitted to FIFA. It's right under your nose.

Whereas neither the Irish Government nor the FAI did anything for FIFA to earn their privilege.

???? What will FIFA think of next? Allowing Irish nationals to represent their country. Tut tut.

Would that be a Gentlemens' Agreement? If so, no thanks - we lost out the last time we trusted someone over one of those...

Another figment of your imagination. And more drivel lacking foundation. When ask to provide sources you invaribaly ignore these quests. I wonder why?

Anyhow, I have no more desire to see a single UK team than I have a single Irish team.

Preferably I'd rather the IFA joined with the British associations than with us.

But consider these two possible future scenarios:
1. A child is born and brought up in NI to Polish parents and the FAI wants to cap him. Since the latest changes to the Irish Constitution, he is not automatically entitled to Irish nationality from birth (nor his parents/grandparents, obviously), therefore the FAI should not be permitted to select him.

In this scenario, he could acquire British nationality and be eligible to represent the North based on Article 16. He's not eligible to play for Ireland.

Meanwhile, they could, presumably, select eg Mark Lawrenson's English born-and-bred nephew, who may be about as "Irish" as David Cameron;

Article 16.

2. Somewhere in eg Estonia, a child is born and given a Russian name by his ethnic Russian parents, grows up speaking Russian, living in a Russian enclave and being educated in Russian. Yet if none of his parents/grandparents was born in Russia/USSR, he will only be entitled to play for Estonia, not "his" country, Russia.

Unless there is international recognition of his Russian nationality, then yes he can only represent Estonia. Interesting your concern here given how quickly the North's followers are so quick to belittle the FAI's use of the granny rule.

Imo, by using the "Nationality from Birth" test to get around the Brazil/Qatari problem, FIFA has been caught out by the Irish nationality anomaly and risks either being similarly caught out by future anomalies, or proves inconsistent by refusing to apply it to cases analogous to that of eg Estonia/Russia (above).

In your opinion. But the IFA is seeking to uphold the current application of FIFA's eligibility statutes so obviously they do not share your opinion.

[Nedser]

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.

The name I use for my country does not just suit my political preferences. For the umpteenth time, it is the official, internationally recognised name for the country and thus, by any objective assessment, the "correct" name, to use your own term. But I've already said I don't care if others refuse to use the official name for my country. If you could make the same allowance for those of us who choose not to use FIFA's name for our national football team, we can move on.

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".

Sorry, this is sheer hypocrisy. You're saying we have a choice on whether to use the official name for the country but we have no such choice when it comes to the name of the football team?!!! Give us a break.

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.

Why I'm bothering with this I don't know, but ..........

The football teams representing the two Koreas are known by FIFA as "Korea Republic" (South) and "Korea Democratic People's Republic" (North) - which are the offical names of the two countries. If FIFA were to be consistent with this, the two teams on our island would be called "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland".

With regard to Taiwan, there is no internationally accepted name for that country - in fact, most other countries don't even recognise that such a state exists. It's also not a UN member, so we can't look there for an internationally accepted name either. That being the case, you can't say FIFA imposed a name that is different to the internationally accepted name.

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.

How was it legitimate for the IFA to call its team Ireland after partition? International football teams are supposed to represent countries, so when the political circumstances/borders/names of countries change, so too do the names of their football teams. There are loads of parallels on this one – countries have been carved up throughout Europe, and AFAIK no FA has ever been allowed to continue using the name of the “old” country, even if they had been using that name for decades before.

For example, the FA based in Belgrade can’t call their team Yugoslavia anymore, even though they probably wish they could. And if you’re looking for a “parallel”, the original Yugoslav FA, which first entered a team known as “Yugoslavia” in international competition, was based in Zagreb (now Croatia). That didn’t stop a different FA, based in what subsequently became a different country, using the same name for their international team in more recent years.

The bottom line is, countries’ borders and the names that go with them are subject to change. The only workable solution is for names of international teams to be based on the current name of the country they represent. As far as I can tell, that is the approach FIFA take in general, but they made an exception when they refused to allow the FAI to name their team after the country it represents.

[DannyInvincible]

See my post #1123 (above)

Cheers for the added direction there. I mightn't have known where to go rooting around for post #1123 otherwise… Anyway, I've responded to that in post #1154 (above).

It was the FAI which originally complained about the IFA picking Southern players, leading to the "Gentlemens' [sic] Agreement whereby each Association would not pick each other's players. The FAI then unilaterally went back on their word. Even then, they assured the IFA that they would not make the first approach. They broke their word again. Worse still, they only approach NI players with a Nationalist background, thereby leading more closely to a situation whereby the FAI is seen as being the Nationalist Irish team (or "Catholic" team, if you're Shane Duffy) and the IFA as being the Unionist Irish team. (I personally despise this last aspect of the FAI's underhand behaviour most of all, btw)

"A gentleman’s agreement is an agreement which is not an agreement, made between two persons neither of whom is a gentleman, whereby each expects the other to be strictly bound without himself being bound at all." - Harry Vaisey.

Besides, was it not FIFA who dictated that the IFA stop calling up players from south of the border? Is this supposed gentlemen's agreement even documented? I always hear of it in articles – journalists are commonly lazy researchers, however - and it's bandied about by yourself on here, but I've never actually seen proof from a reliable source that one ever existed. It might as well possess a certain mythical status by now, it's the type of thing that could become a truth in itself over a few decades of pub-talk. There was no mention of it by Boyce in 1999, when surely it would have been quite appropriate to highlight it if it was still supposed to be "in effect", although, obviously, I do recognise that quoted snippet was rather brief and didn't necessarily amount to everything he had to say on the matter. That isn't a denial that it ever existed either, by the way. It just seems like an odd arrangement.

What would the FAI stand to gain from such a one-sided, no-strings-attached agreement anyway? A sense of moral decency or something?... Were the IFA bound by any terms at all? It doesn’t appear they were as FIFA had already dictated they weren't permitted to call up players from south of the border anyway. Willingly entering into or maintaining wholly self-detrimental agreements doesn't strike me as all-that-conventional human behaviour. The idea that our beloved FAI would do something of the sort... even more preposterous! Surely something so voluntary and unenforceable ought to be entirely and one-sidedly re-negotiable at any time anyway.

Admittedly, I’m quoting Wikipedia here, but it seems to offer cited evidence contrary to the idea of there being a gentlemen’s agreement between the two associations. It appears that it was FIFA who stepped in. The FAI’s article features the following:

Shortly after the IFA rejoined FIFA in 1946, the FAI stopped selecting Northern players. The IFA stopped selecting southern players after the FAI complained to FIFA in 1950.

Meanwhile, the article on the Ireland national football team (1982-1950) features the following:

The FAI took steps to prevent players from what was now the Republic of Ireland turning out for the IFA's Ireland team. All UK-based players from the Republic were pressured to sign an undertaking not to play for the IFA. Jackie Carey was the last to comply, in April 1950. Rule 35(b) of the FAI articles provided that players based in the Republic would be denied clearance certificates for transfers abroad unless they gave a similar undertaking. The IFA complained to FIFA; in April 1951, FIFA replied that the FAI rule 35(b) was contrary to its regulations, but also that the IFA team could not select "citizens of Eire". An exception was for British Home Championship games, as a 1923 IFAB agreement at Liverpool prevented FIFA intervention in relations between the four Home Nations. However, the exception would only apply "if the F.A. of Ireland do not object", and was never availed of.

IFA and FAI teams both continued to compete as Ireland. At FIFA's 1953 congress, its Rule 3 was amended so that an international team must use "that title ... recognised politically and geographically of the countries or territories". The FAI initially claimed Rule 3 gave them the right to the name Ireland, but FIFA subsequently ruled neither team could be referred to as Ireland, decreeing that the FAI team be officially designated as the Republic of Ireland, while the IFA team was to become Northern Ireland. The IFA objected and in 1954 was permitted to continue using the name Ireland in Home Internationals, based on the 1923 agreement. This practice was discontinued in the late 1970s.

Even if one did exist, dismissing a supposed gentlemen's agreement isn't an inherently shameful thing to do. Especially if it was an "agreement" as one-sided as the one alleged to have been in place between the FAI and the IFA. Plus, circumstances and mindsets will always change over time. It could be argued that you should be thankful the FAI bothered with maintaining an unenforceable agreement at all for so long.

Anyhow, the crux of it remains that the FAI are perfectly entitled to give northern-born Irish nationals the opportunity to represent us under current FIFA rules. Why would you seek to deny these individuals this entitlement by telling them they may think they’re Irish but that you’re going to support the IFA in making them play for a British team? That appears undeniably and inflexibly unionist, which I don’t think is such a good image for the IFA in this day and age. Why should the FAI seek to deny them this, even? I'd be naturally disappointed in those running the FAI if they were to dismiss the enthusiastic desire of a northern-born Irish national to represent us. Surely, in the interests of cross-community relations and recognition, you can view this in a positive light and be happy for young nationalists in NI that they have this opportunity to express their Irish identity... I'd understand and find more acceptable FIFA acting to our detriment, but expecting the FAI to voluntarily make things more difficult for themselves is just daft.

I hate to point this out to you again, but didn't Alan Kernaghan, of Ulster Protestant background, line out for us in the mid-90s? So much for the "sectarian FAI"... I don't suspect, however, that there would be too many of similar background to Kernaghan who'd rather represent us if simultaneously given the opportunity to represent Northern Ireland, as Kernaghan was denied. I don't think that's a sectarian assumption to make either. Surely, it's just recognition of the obvious general reality. Would you rather that, if the FAI were going to approach players anyway, that they pointlessly approach players you could easily assume would be uninterested due to their background revealing a wholly British identity as well?

As for the snide and continual sullying of Shane Duffy's character over an innocent - but misrepresented - comment he made during an interview in which he was presumably asked to explain why he had decided to play for us and attempted to do so by indicating a socio-cultural reality in Northern Irish society (that being, that those from the Catholic community - as historians, sociologists, those inhabiting the statelet and you-name-it, et cetera, have long referred to the nationalist community - generally identify as Irish; that, of course, being the legally-recognised sense of Irishness that affiliates itself with the nation of Ireland), I don't have much time for it. It's been pointed out by both myself and 'Predator' already as to why there was clearly no sectarian intent behind it.

Also, you're still speaking in the language of underhand targeting and poaching. It's difficult to take you seriously when you do that.

Due to a political/Government policy on Nationality etc, over which the IFA has no influence whatever, we have a situation whereby a neighbouring Association is entitled to pick NI-born players, whereas we cannot pick ROI-born players. Regardless of the FAI's technical right to do so, if you cannot see why this should irk the IFA/NI team and its fans, then you are either very blinkered or in denial.

All nationality laws worldwide are governed by political/governmental policy. Likewise, the FAI have no influence whatsoever over this either. Furthermore, not all persons born in NI will seek to exercise their birthright to Irish citizenship. The way you protest about this so incessantly, you'd nearly think the FAI were manipulating government policy or there was some political conspiracy or interference in the running of the FAI. What gives less validity to your argument, is that the nationality laws you refer to are bilaterally agreed by the state to which NI is party, as well as being consented to, and thereby vindicated, by a democratic majority of the population within NI. The Good Friday Agreement wasn't drawn up by the Irish state alone, you know?

You don't seek to pick players from south of the border anyway. Sure didn't Blatter - in a way only a buffoon of his enormity could - offer such a compromise to the IFA and it was rejected, so I don't know why you mention that specifically. Similarly, you aren't permitted to call up, say, Spanish nationals in the same way you aren't permitted to call up Irish nationals from the south; it's because they don't qualify for British citizenship. Neither is it an "anomaly" or an "unearned privilege" that the FAI be permitted to call up northern-born Irish nationals. It's a reasonable expectation; a natural consequence of the concept of Irish nationhood.

[DannyInvincible]

Sorry, this is sheer hypocrisy. You're saying we have a choice on whether to use the official name for the country but we have no such choice when it comes to the name of the football team?!!! Give us a break.

Ha! Good spot. That genuinely must be one of the wildest and most brazen examples of hypocrisy I've seen since about EalingGreen's post before that.

The bottom line is, countries’ borders and the names that go with them are subject to change. The only workable solution is for names of international teams to be based on the current name of the country they represent. As far as I can tell, that is the approach FIFA take in general, but they made an exception when they refused to allow the FAI to name their team after the country it represents.

This is correct. Check out the second paragraph of the two from Wikipedia I quoted in the middle of my last post. It's of significant relevance.