Jim Boyce says "Just say NO"
BBC have a well hidden article about some letter from OWC fans on the eligibility situation.
"We believe this situation to be unique in world football, whereby one national association may select two jurisdictions worth of players," he said.
Eh? what nonsense! Any 2nd generation Irish national, born anywhere in the world, can declare for the FAI under article 15.
First generation Irish nationals born in the North, have the same FIFA eligibility right (to declare for the FAI) as any 2nd generation Irish national, born anywhere in the world. Many other countries have similar citizenship laws (Jus sanguinis).
"Unique", my hole!
Now they want FIFA to change the rules to fit in with their narrow ignorant world view.
Last edited by geysir; 01/06/2011 at 10:03 AM.
Originally Posted by Some NI fans quoted on the BBC
Other countries may have similar laws (where pretty much everyone in the country automatically qualifies for citizenship of another country), but I can't think of any off-hand. Can you remind me?
This always reminds me of an exotic cocktail, like a bloody Mary. The literal 'blood law' sounds a bit sinister...Jus sanguinis
That might grate your loyal sensitivities, but Irish citizenship is a civil right, democratically accepted by referenda into constitutional law in both the North and the South.
By this stage we can all accept that what is relevant to eligibility for a national team, is the wording of FIFA article 15.
A player born in another country qualifies for another association if they are entitled to automatic citizenship of the territory
The FIFA rule is
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.
Jus sanguinis is that policy of granting automatic citizenship to children of citizens, no matter where in the world the child is born.
Article 15 eligibility applies to all such automatic citizens/permanent nationality, not dependent on residence in a certain country. That applies to all countries who follow Jus sanguinis as part of their citizenship laws. Most European countries adopt the policy of 'jus sanguinis' in their citizenship laws.
So, players born in one country are perfectly entitled to declare for another country, under FIFAarticle 15, if they have that other country's nationality as a birthright. That pretty much shoves the claim of so called "uniqueness" into the rubbish bin, as how it relates to FIFA article 15.
The part that is unique to Ireland is that most all NI born have the choice as a birthright.
Last edited by geysir; 01/06/2011 at 1:54 PM.
Germany.
Seems Jim Boyce has gone and become a FIFA vice-president... uh oh...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13615860
I don't have any loyal sensitivities- I just treat each issue on its merits. Anyway (as you must know as I've repeated often enough here), I've no problem with you (plural) giving me and everyone else from NI citizenship and the right to play for your football team.
Er, that was my point (ie, it's either unique Worldwide or pretty close to it).The part that is unique to Ireland is that most all NI born have the choice as a birthright
Germany doesn't automatically give everyone from Poland (or even Upper Silesia or Miroslav Klose's ancestral village) automatic citizenship, does it?
Last edited by Gather round; 01/06/2011 at 3:30 PM.
I'm not unduly concerned. Firstly on the eligibility issue, wouldn't the CAS decision still be supreme in the area of eligibility. And secondly, the fastest way Boyce could jeopardise his new position is to appear to be looking out for the interests of his own national association. But then again, words like legitimacy, transparency and democracy would not be words that would come to mind when one thinks of FIFA.
I must look into it, but I'd imagine a rule change would require widespread support from the various member associations. What powers does a FIFA vice-president actually have? (Not including behind-the-scenes ones.)
What is relevant is the FIFA statute 15 and as I pointed out, its application to citizens born outside its borders is not unique to Ireland.
If the IFA started a lobby to get 66% to support a proposal for a rule change, a change that radically alters the basis for International eligibility
just because some Irish citizens chose not to play for them, I would hazard a guess that they would get one or two votes at most.
Perceived power is very important here. If Boyce is seen as a power broker in comparison to the puny FAI then we could be in trouble down the line. Now what Delaney should do us align himself like a good boy to Platini and have his ear in these matters. Because I can see it getting hairy down the line. However the comments about the English FA today show how much respect Is actually garnered by the British associations and the IFA within FIFA.
I still think the FAI need to get their fingers out and start voicing what are the facts in this case so that they aren't behind the curve being seen to be defending a case rather than leading it.
I think you're right. CAS' decision was final and binding as it applies to the current rules.
There'd be a lot of opinion against a rule change from North African and other African countries I reckon, because they would all want to recruit players brought up in te French underage system. Boyce would have to win over a whole continent which I think is unlikely.
It's quite scary thatn he is now a FIFA VP.
Can't see too much to worry about. It would require Boyce to dispute a CAS ruling and lobby for a controversial and radical change to the eligibility rules - and he didn't get to become VP by rocking any boats.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
Whilst you're 100% correct... it still could get scary and will make the IFA feel that they have a friend in high places.
From FIFA's webpage for their executive committee (which includes the eight vice-presidents):
I imagine that list isn't exhaustive as it seems to state that those duties mentioned are just some of the duties included in the executive committee's overall role. Anyway, of what's mentioned there, whilst the executive committee will have influence over who is appointed to the IFAB, the IFAB, as far as I can make out, helps only to determine the Laws of the Game, or how the game is played, in other words. There's no indication that those respective associations that form the IFAB have any greater say than any other association when it comes to deciding the FIFA statutes and the regulations governing the application of those statutes, which deal with what one might call the administrative side of the game, including eligibility issues.The Executive Committee consists of a President, elected by the Congress in the year following a FIFA World Cup™, eight vice-presidents and 15 members, appointed by the confederations and associations. It meets at least twice a year, with the mandate for each member lasting four years, and its role includes determining the dates, locations and format of tournaments, appointing FIFA delegates to the IFAB and electing and dismissing the General Secretary on the proposal of the FIFA President. (Art. 30 and 31 of the Statutes).
From the statutes' webpage:
FIFA's congress is separate from its executive committee and it is essentially just another term for the coming together of all of FIFA's member associations to vote on a particular matter, with each member association being accorded one vote, of course, "in the spirit of true democracy". Apparently...Changes to the FIFA Statutes can only be made by the FIFA Congress and require a three-quarter majority of the associations present and eligible to vote.
On the surface then, it would appear that Jim Boyce isn't really in any significant or improved position to influence a change of the statutes from when he was, say, the president of a "mere" association, the IFA. Either way, he is just one vice-president and I can't envisage a rule-change on the eligibility issue anyway; article 15 being the general and accepted principle and FIFA, most likely, unwilling to intervene in an issue that would no doubt open a political can of worms for them. Best for them to just leave it be, I'd say. And the last thing Blatter would want right now is an earful from Eamon Gilmore!
Even if they got 66 per cent of associations to back their proposal, it wouldn't do them much good. Such a change would actually require 75 per cent of support from the FIFA congress, from what I can make out anyway.
It'll certainly run and run. But I think it could actually get funnier for those who enjoy the IFA getting embarrassed, since Boyce seems more likely to rebuff their petitions in favour of promoting playing for NI by choice rather than coercion (like he did in today's reports about him seeing no reason players couldn't choose NI).
Plus FIFA bun fights is one of the few scenarios where I'm glad we've got Delaney in our corner. With CAS and loads of already nations already predisposed against change, I'm certain Delaney would outmanoeuvre Boyce, should it come to that.
Last edited by SwanVsDalton; 01/06/2011 at 4:48 PM.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
I think the last thing WE'D want is Gilmore going near anything as important as eligibility issues. Best leave him to deal with our lesser foreign diplomacy issues.
That's funny you should say that whilst I loathe Delaney and think he's a creep I have to say he's great at the politicking. See the Rooney F episode.
I think that would be a good idea. If anything, at least it might help clear up some of the confusion (or flush out some of the nonsense, even) that seems to prevail.
Whilst it's in the interests of FIFA to generally adhere to CAS rulings and appear in some way accountable to an independent external body, CAS rulings aren't necessarily binding upon FIFA, as the Gibraltar Football Association's failed efforts to gain UEFA membership via an appeal to CAS demonstrated. UEFA and FIFA just defied the CAS ruling favouring Gibraltar's admission after intense lobbying by the Royal Spanish Football Federation to reject the Gibraltarian application.
Even if the CAS judgment was binding upon FIFA's rules, it would only be so as they currently stand. FIFA could easily amend their rules as they so wished and the judgment would no longer be applicable to or effective upon the new wording. Not that that's at all likely to happen, mind.
You're quite right about the African associations. It was the north and west African francophone bloc that lobbied to have the age limit on an association change lifted in the first place and it's unlikely the IFA will ever have the influence to overturn that development. Unless they could somehow get the French Football Federation on their side in light of the recent disillusionment expressed from figures within that federation who seem a bit disgruntled with French-born players working their way through the French youth academies only to later declare for the country of their parents, usually in north or west Africa.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 01/06/2011 at 5:17 PM.
I don't see what confusion needs to be cleared up other than from a few fans and one association. The FAI responded when they needed to and the facts of the case have been established to all but the most intransigent.
It hardly seems worthwhile rebuffing a collective whinge but if moaning does begin to turn into something more threatening, at UEFA or FIFA, then I'd hope the FAI would be swift to act.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks