Player eligibility row

[Dodge]

A Nordie, as we know, is a full blown citizen of the Republic, from birth, born in a territory that entitles him/her to Irish citizenship.

This isn't strictly true as following the 2004 referendum children born in Ireland (32c) are not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship.

[osarusan]

Apologies if this question has been asked before, but I asked it about a year ago, and don't remember any conclusive answer.

If the IFA had accepted the proposal that any player born anywhere on the island could represent either association, that would have meant in effect ( I think) that Irish nationality made you eligible for either the ROI or NI team. That being the case, under FIFa regulations, players would have to fulfill the further criteria in section 18 (I think). Would that have meant that many of the NI players who are currently allowed represent the ROI team (because Irish nationality makes you eligible for the ROI only) would no longer be eligible, as they wouldn't meet the extra criteria necessary for players with a nationality which makes them eligible for different associations?

[geysir]

This isn't strictly true as following the 2004 referendum children born in Ireland (32c) are not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship.

True enough, the exceptions have already been well noted here often enough. The hypothetical context was about players born abroad who have already qualified for Irish nationality and looking to declare fpr the FAI, the assumption is that they are descended from Irish citizen/s.

[geysir]

Apologies if this question has been asked before, but I asked it about a year ago, and don't remember any conclusive answer.

If the IFA had accepted the proposal that any player born anywhere on the island could represent either association, that would have meant in effect ( I think) that Irish nationality made you eligible for either the ROI or NI team. That being the case, under FIFa regulations, players would have to fulfill the further criteria in section 18 (I think). Would that have meant that many of the NI players who are currently allowed represent the ROI team (because Irish nationality makes you eligible for the ROI only) would no longer be eligible, as they wouldn't meet the extra criteria necessary for players with a nationality which makes them eligible for different associations?

First and foremost the eligibility rules that are in existence before the 2 federations sit down together, are the the default rules.
According to FIFA protocol, should 2 federations (with FIFAs grace), come to another agreement, then the terms of eligibility are set within that special agreement.
The main agenda of the compromise proposal was already set by FIFA, specifically allowing free flow in both directions.
If the IFA and FAI wanted to set extra terms of eligibility (residence, ancestry etc) then they would have to specify those terms in the agreement and FIFA would have to agree to them.

[SwanVsDalton]

There's nothing unfair here. Eligibility is based on nationality not place of birth. Denying the right of Irish nationals to play for their country is unfair. FIFA proposed this to the FAI in 2007 (ie not to pick Irish nationals born in NI, which the FAI naturally rejected). FIFA then proposed that anyone born on the island of Ireland could play for which ever association they chose which the FAI accepted but the IFA rejected.

Ask yourself why the IFA reject that second proposal? Wasn't that the fairest proposal available to both parties - ie giving the individual player the choice to choose? Ask yourself what motivated the IFA to reject that proposal. Were they seeking fair play?

It's still unfair - a player from the North is much more likely to declare for the South than the other way round (excepting those not good enough for ROI who could mercenary their way into the NI setup). I can see why they would want to lock players from their territory, even if I don't agree with it.

[The Fly]

Ask yourself why the IFA reject that second proposal? Wasn't that the fairest proposal available to both parties - ie giving the individual player the choice to choose? Ask yourself what motivated the IFA to reject that proposal. Were they seeking fair play?

The IFA, quite naturally, rejected the second proposal because it would have lead to the creation of one single Irish international side.

[Dodge]

The IFA, quite naturally, rejected the second proposal because it would have lead to one single Irish international side.

Just like allowing British citizens to play for 4 sides has led to one single British side?

[The Fly]

Just like allowing British citizens to play for 4 sides has led to one single British side?

The crucial difference is that British 'citizens' are not allowed to play for any of the four British sides as of right.

[Dodge]

They are if they're not born in one of the 4 home nations.

Under the agreement the IFA rejected, they wouldn't have lost a single thing and would've gained the right to select players from ROI.

[The Fly]

They are if they're not born in one of the 4 home nations.

I was aware of that caveat. However, given that it's application is so rare - it's significance is negligible.

Under the agreement the IFA rejected, they wouldn't have lost a single thing and would've gained the right to select players from ROI.

They would have lost their credibility, and put their existance in jeopardy. It would be naive to suggest otherwise.

[geysir]

It's still unfair - a player from the North is much more likely to declare for the South than the other way round (excepting those not good enough for ROI who could mercenary their way into the NI setup). I can see why they would want to lock players from their territory, even if I don't agree with it.

Fair/unfair are the current buzz words of UK Political parties, e.g. every utterance on every topic made by the UK Liberal party is littered with Fair/Unfair.
The landscape of our consciousness is being polluted with the meaningless repetitions of the concepts of what is fair and unfair and the political parties are not missing a trick, UK Labour party apparently are more fair and less unfair.

The appropriate words to use are rational and irrational.
Rules and regulations are formulated first and foremost with a rationality and applied with a rationality. Understand the rationale of the rule, then you can judge if it is applied rationally.
Since FIFA first started, the fundamental rationale is that citizens/nationals of a State can play for the representative team.
Nationality is that evident connection. Automatic nationality is the strongest, acquired nationality (in all its forms) comes next.
It would be an astonishing act of irrationality not to allow dual nationals their own choice when those dual nationals are automatic citizens from birth.
Automatic citizenship is the strongest connection a person can have with a State, infinitely more connected to a State than a small fraction of a bloodline existing in a descendant somewhere on the globe.

[Dodge]

They would have lost their credibility, and put their existance in jeopardy. It would be naive to suggest otherwise.

Their credibility is non existant. Their existance is more in jeopardy to the forces calling for a GB team than anything related to an irish team.

[The Fly]

Fair/unfair are the current buzz words of UK Political parties, e.g. every utterance on every topic made by the UK Liberal party is littered with Fair/Unfair.
The landscape of our consciousness is being polluted with the meaningless repetitions of the concepts of what is fair and unfair and the political parties are not missing a trick, UK Labour party apparently are more fair and less unfair.

That's unfair.

The appropriate words to use are rational and irrational.
Rules and regulations are formulated first and foremost with a rationality and applied with a rationality. Understand the rationale of the rule, then you can judge if it is applied rationally.
Since FIFA first started, the fundamental rationale is that citizens/nationals of a State can play for the representative team.

That's rational.

Nationality is that evident connection. Automatic nationality is the strongest, acquired nationality (in all its forms) comes next.
It would be an astonishing act of irrationality not to allow dual nationals their own choice when those dual nations are automatic citizens from birth.
Automatic citizenship is the strongest connection a person can have with a State, infinitely more connected to a State than a small fraction of a bloodline existing in a descendant somewhere on the globe.

Nationality is key.

[SwanVsDalton]

Fair/unfair are the current buzz words of UK Political parties, e.g. every utterance on every topic made by the UK Liberal party is littered with Fair/Unfair.
The landscape of our consciousness is being polluted with the meaningless repetitions of the concepts of what is fair and unfair and the political parties are not missing a trick, UK Labour party apparently are more fair and less unfair.

The appropriate words to use are rational and irrational.
Rules and regulations are formulated first and foremost with a rationality and applied with a rationality. Understand the rationale of the rule, then you can judge if it is applied rationally.
Since FIFA first started, the fundamental rationale is that citizens/nationals of a State can play for the representative team.
Nationality is that evident connection. Automatic nationality is the strongest, acquired nationality (in all its forms) comes next.
It would be an astonishing act of irrationality not to allow dual nationals their own choice when those dual nations are automatic citizens from birth.
Automatic citizenship is the strongest connection a person can have with a State, infinitely more connected to a State than a small fraction of a bloodline existing in a descendant somewhere on the globe.

Eh yeah - don't know where in my post I disagree with any of this (or what I did to deserve a socio-political lesson on the meaning of 'fair' ). I merely stated why I can see how the IFA, purely in footballing terms, could be disadvantaged by a deal allowing both associations to pick from either territory.

Though as Dodge points out above, in hindsight they would've lost nothing by accepting it. Obviously they had confidence their misguided case was a winner...

[The Fly]

Their credibility is non existant.

The only credibility that matters, is that which lies with their own fanbase. Had the IFA accepted the second proposal, that credibility would have collapsed.

Their existance is more in jeopardy to the forces calling for a GB team than anything related to an irish team.

Much ado about nothing, me thinks!

[Gather round]

.....

[Predator]

The only credibility that matters, is that which lies with their own fanbase. Had the IFA accepted the second proposal, that credibility would have collapsed.

Had they accepted the proposal, Irish nationality would have permitted a player to represent the IFA - something which the CAS note that the IFA once tried (and failed) to argue in their favour.
Page 23:

79.The Panel noted that IFA also advanced an alternative argument that Mr Kearns had shared nationality because, as an Irish national (irrespective of his British
nationality), he could play for either IFA or FAI and Mr Hunter asserted that it had always been the case that the IFA could select Irish nationals with a territorial connection to Northern Ireland.

One might also boldly assert that in that case, the IFA and their fans would have truly had that 'shared' team that they so proudly claim represents them. Eligibility for which would have included either British or Irish nationality. Would that have been setting a precedent?

Nevertheless, the IFA probably felt that it would lead to the formation of "Ireland A" and "Ireland B", but as we know, that is but a conjecture. In theory (and in practice), it would have put the IFA at a clear advantage over the rest of FIFA's members - they would become the only member able to select players based on two nationalities, rather than one, if I'm not mistaken.

[ifk101]

The only credibility that matters, is that which lies with their own fanbase. Had the IFA accepted the second proposal, that credibility would have collapsed

How so? The IFA is the original association of the island. By turning down the proposal, they basically rejected the reason the IFA came into existence - ie to administer and govern football on the island of Ireland.

[Gather round]

Fair/unfair are the current buzz words of UK Political parties, e.g. every utterance on every topic made by the UK Liberal party is littered with Fair/Unfair...The landscape of our consciousness is being polluted with the meaningless repetitions of the concepts of what is fair and unfair and the political parties are not missing a trick, UK Labour party apparently are more fair and less unfair

Same with the Greens over here. We should really find something more imaginative.

Their credibility is non existant. Their existance is more in jeopardy to the forces calling for a GB team than anything related to an irish team.

Our existence isn't in jeopardy at all. Who are these 'forces' calling for a GB team, other than Seb Coe and a few stirrers on here?

How so? The IFA is the original association of the island. By turning down the proposal, they basically rejected the reason the IFA came into existence - ie to administer and govern football on the island of Ireland

Hardly. That original raison d'etre ceased to apply when the FAI was set up, or at least when the IFA stopped selecting players from the South.

[Charlie Darwin]

They are if they're not born in one of the 4 home nations.

Under the agreement the IFA rejected, they wouldn't have lost a single thing and would've gained the right to select players from ROI.

This has actually been closed. Maik Taylor wouldn't be eligible for the NI side as of 2008 had he not already been capped.