Then you should have acknowledged that simple fact instead of stating this nonsenseOriginally Posted by Not Brazil
"Rules pertaining to players with a nationality entitling them to represent more than one Association (for example, British Citizens) were already in place in the Statutes in November 2007 - Article 15, Paragraph 3."
Which indicated you hadn't a clue
The relevance of that difference is that it supports what I wrote, and countered your claim in which you statedAnd the relevance of the "difference" in November 2007 when FIFA made their ridiculous proposal, in the context of the discussion is what, exactly?
,"all saliant eligibilty rules pertaining the the Irish dispute - at the time of the FIFA prosposal in November 2007 - where contained on page 60 of the FIFA Statutes applicable at that time."
Clearly to any acute student of the eligibility debate, Article 16 was a highly relevant issue in the whole eligibility debate, it formed a large part of the IFA case to CAS.
It was not present in the statutes in 2007 when FIFA made their proposal, it was incorporated afterwards in 2008.
You, for some reason sought to dispute this and made an almighty fuss, complete with condescension and haughtiness.
Be more specific with your question.If the FIFA proposal of November 2007 was put back on the table now, what's the difference in consequences?
And in future please make the effort to refrain from snide personal comments to any poster on this board.
Last edited by geysir; 25/05/2012 at 12:20 AM.
What's the difference?
If it's the addition of Article 16 as it is now. That was part of the eligibility rules at the time, it just wasn't on page 60 of the statutes. It was in the Annexe 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005).
NB claimed it was already there in the 2007 statutes and lost the run of himself and made a big issue out of nothing
Don't worry, I've been following. Clearly not all relevant eligibility rules were contained on ONE page - page 60. As you've said already,
Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
circular no. 901 dated 19 March 2004 and
circular no. 1093 dated 21 June2007
were all part of eligibility rules just not included in the statutes at the time.
In the context of a discussion on a FIFA proposal in November 2007, Article 16 is not "highly relevant" - as it was not introduced until 2008.
In the context of a discussion on the consequences of FIFA's proposal in 2007, the IFA's case to CAS, based on Article 16 (as applicable in 2009) is, therefore irrelevant.
These are basic facts of logic - which you concede.
I don't claim to be an "acute student of the eligibility debate" (cringe!).
I am an interested observer in the eligibility debate, willing to offer and discuss my opinions with those with different opinions.
Last edited by Not Brazil; 25/05/2012 at 8:01 AM.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
In what way were they relevant to the "Irish dispute"?
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
What is now article 6 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes was then article 1.1 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of players. It related to shared nationalities and was the same in effect then as it is now. FIFA's 2007 proposal to make Irish nationality a shared nationality would had to have been exempt from this regulation to operate as expressly intended.
Annexe 2 above is effectively Article 16, and affected eligibility as much as article 16 does now. Nothing has changed since 07, just annexes and circulars being included in the wording of the statutes. The rules are still the same.
Could you kindly post a copy of that DI?
Circulars 901 and 1093, as cited by Joe, seem irrelevant to me, in context.
Edit: Forget that request DI- got it!
Last edited by Not Brazil; 25/05/2012 at 1:20 AM.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
The relevant information/chronology is outlined between paragraphs 60 and 64 of the Kearns judgment.
Here are the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe..._en_122007.pdf
Scroll down to page 30 for Annexe 2.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 25/05/2012 at 1:22 AM.
Article 16 is Article 6 now.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
I really must get into the analysis of the legislation a bit more.
DI, what are the key FIFA statutes that govern player eligibility?
I stand corrected Joe - the salient eligibility rules, as pertaining to the Irish dispute, we're effectively contained on two pages, not one.
I had overlooked Annex 2.
Circular 901 in 2004 dealt with players acquiring a new nationality.
Circular 1093 in 2007 basically strengthened Article 15 Para 1, to close a loophole regarding temporary nationality.
I would contest that neither were core to the Irish dispute in November 2007 - I don't believe the IFA ever contested that Republic Of Ireland Nationals born in Northern Ireland were acquiring a new nationality, or that the nature of their
Citizenship of the Republic of Ireland was not permanent.
Thanks for the clarification DI.
I find it quite incredible that FIFA were prepared, for the sake of Republic Of Ireland Nationals, to create an inequality (discrimination) in their eligibility rules - as you suggest.
Every Nationality in the world which would ordinarily permit a player to play for more than one Association treated differently, and disadvantageously, to Republic Of Ireland Nationals.
That simply would have been an explosion waiting to happen, and in total breach of FIFA own Statutes on discrimination.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
Thanks, I was aware of that, typo.
Agreed, I only mentioned 901 and 1093 as part of a full quote, and I didn'nt mention them in a reply to you, but in the reply to geysir. Anyway, glad it's all been cleared up.
I have thoroughly explained that article 16 was incorporated into the FIFA statutes in May 2008. Before that date it was contained in a separate document.
This you sought to dispute.
And now you chose to dispute the relevancy of article 16 in the Irish dispute, in a debate on one nationality representing two or more association,
which is the core issue on the FIFA compromise in 2007. And the relevance of article 16 in the IFA case to CAS which is also a part of the discussion.
Article 6 as it is now known, has had a relevancy all along, even when it was not incorporated into the statutes. The core details of the FIFA compromise of 2007 proves that relevancy beyond doubt.
I have stated, that I believed the FIFA legal board were serious when they offered this 2007 compromise, they believed with the benefit of their legal knowledge that it would pass legal scrutiny as long as the two associations willingly entered into the agreement. The agreement would be cocooned from the statutes.
And they believed that they did not have to change the statutes in order for it to work.
As the Irish dispute is a unique situation, to some extent allows for those possibilities to happen. In 2007 the most similar eligibility rule was the UK agreement, that UK agreement was contained in a separate document away from the statutes, yet it had statute status.
Maybe it has relevancy or maybe no relevancy at all, but FIFA chose to move that 1993 UK agreement into the statutes in 2008, and this was an agreement which predated other annexed document. My point was simple, maybe in 2007 a separate unique agreement could be made and cocooned but maybe not possible to have an unique agreement after 2008 when the statutes and annexed documents were incorporated
Last edited by geysir; 25/05/2012 at 9:49 AM.
Point of Information;It's Irish Nationals...
It was indeed an incredible proposal but I see no reason to suspect they were bull****ting. I dunno if it's entirely correct to frame it as being for the sake of Irish nationals though, as if to suggest either the FAI or Irish nationals sought this inequality. Rather, it was an attempt on FIFA's misguided behalf to appease the IFA and, had it come to pass, would have created an anomaly favouring them over all other associations who would naturally have been the representatives of a mere one nationality as standard. In saying that, the IFA didn't seek it either and went as far as rejecting it.
Exactly. A problem which never happened.
I don't see why that should be the case. When previous circulars or annexes were passed, the statutes as they then would have existed would have amounted to the incorporation or bringing together of even earlier circulars and annexes, or documents similar in effect. In essence, FIFA can pass addenda whenever they like, surely? They've never stated that the present rules are the final edit, if you will, and will be subject to no further changes. If FIFA see a need for amendment, I'd imagine they'll happily pass an addendum.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 25/05/2012 at 10:03 AM.
The rules that presently govern eligibility are to be found in articles 5 to 8 of the 2011 Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...uten2011_e.pdf
(Is that file working properly for others? Hasn't been loading properly for me the past two days.)
If that doesn't work, here's the 2010 edition: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...uten2010_e.pdf
You'll find what are now articles 5 to 8 on page 66. They were then named articles 15 to 18.
What is now article 5 outlines the general principle of eligibility. Article 6 governs eligibility for associations who share a nationality, such as the FA, SFA, IFA and FAW who all share the British nationality, and invokes additional criteria requiring their players to satisfy a territorial connection. Article 7 deals with players who acquire a new nationality and article 8 deals with players switching association.
Circulars and annexes that have been mentioned above have more or less been addenda or amendments FIFA have made over the years that have since been incorporated into the overall rules.
There's a Wikipedia article featuring a general overview of some modern changes, such as the introduction of the right to switch association once before the age of 21 in 2004 and the later lifting in 2009 of that age-cap of 21 to allow players to switch once at any age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_el...Modern_changes
Although obviously tinged with other factors and complexities, I suspect that rule-change to be one of the most significant causes of the greater numbers of northern-born Irish nationals (from zero in the decades prior to the 1990s to two or three per year post-2004) declaring for the FAI in recent years and outlined my reasoning here: http://backpagefootball.com/general/...tions-for-fai/
Given Wiki's nature, just be careful to double-check anything you read there though. It states, for example:
"There are no restrictions on players that wish to switch national associations at youth level. Alex Zahavi has represented the Israel under-21s, the United States under-20s, the Portugal under-19s, the Portugal under-18s and the Portugal under-17s."
I don't think that's actually correct. There are, of course, restrictions, but they apply to competitive fixtures obviously. Likewise, we're not certain what exactly effects a player's solitary switch; whether it is any competitive fixture for his new association or merely a senior competitive fixture...
To be honest, however, if one wants to understand the eligibility statutes and their historical development since the 1950s, especially in relation to Ireland, the Court of Arbitration for Sport did a fantastic job of explaining the exact application and interpretation of each statute in the 2010 case of IFA v. FAI, Kearns and FIFA: http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...ward202071.pdf
CAS was dealing with the regulations when they were articles 15 to 18 so will refer to them as such. The text of the articles is still identical, but I'd recommend a read of the judgment from page 11 onward. The whole thing could be read in an afternoon actually. Scroll through some of the headings and you'll find where they clarify the meaning behind each statute.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks