Eligibility Rules, Okay

[geysir]

The 4 UK associations have a guaranteed vp seat, one of 8 dwarves. It must be NI's turn for that particular bung.
The only power the UK vp has, is a veto on any proposed change to the rules of the game.

The IFA, if they so wish, can send in a proposal to change any rule at the next congress. They don't need big Jim for that, nor is Big Jim in any position to trade favours for votes.

[Not Brazil]

If Boyce starts to try and throw his weight about in FIFA on the eligibility issue, I would imagine that someone might remind him of the handshake with his FAI counterpart in Belfast almost 12 years ago - this followed a meeting at which Boyce accepted that players born in Northern Ireland could play for the Republic Of Ireland.

Boyce said, following the meeting:

"The issue of Northern Ireland's eligible players opting to play for the Republic was discussed at length with the FAI," said Boyce.

"It was also stressed that if a player made an approach himself, there was little the FAI could do unless FIFA was to change legislation. That, we accept. But at least we have agreed to notify one another should this happen.''

Boyce also stated that he was "extremely happy" with the outcome of discussions at the meeting.

PS. Interesting that Boyce talked about FIFA changing legislation - the clowns in Windsor Avenue recently spent a buck fortune at CAS trying to have FIFA rules upheld. Which they were.

[Charlie Darwin]

Germany doesn't automatically give everyone from Poland (or even Upper Silesia or Miroslav Klose's ancestral village) automatic citizenship, does it?

Fair point, but it just so happens that almost everyone born in the North is ethnically Irish. The rest are welcome along for the ride too

[geysir]

There was a proposal at the fifa congress by a Gulf state, to change Eligibility statute 18 (for players acquiring a new nationality)
Required residence is now 5 years - they proposed to lower it to 3 years residence in the new country.

[BonnieShels]

There was a proposal at the fifa congress by a Gulf state, to change Eligibility statute 18 (for players acquiring a new nationality)
Required residence is now 5 years - they proposed to lower it to 3 years residence in the new country.

That gulf state being Qatar who were trying to get a gaggle of Brazilians.

Edit: or the UAE. I thought Qatar were up to that as well. Or maybe they used the UAE as a cover.

[DannyInvincible]

Some more on that here: http://www.goal.com/en/news/14/asia/...dency-rule-to-

The United Arab Emirates Football Association (UAEFA) will find out if their proposal to reduce the residency requirements for citizenship is accepted this week when it goes to Fifa congress.

UAEFA want residency requirements changed from five years to three years so it can field a stronger national team.

The rule change would allow UAE to select players over the age of 18 who have lived in the Middle East nation continuously for three years and never been capped by another country, such as Brazil-born Pro League stars Bare and Fernando Baiano.

“It is going to help smaller countries such as us to improve the national team because we would have a bigger pool to choose from," said UAE's head of players' status and transfer committee Dr Saleem bin Suroor al Shamsi to Gulf News.

"Maybe one day we will see a Brazilian play for us. I hope so. That's the idea.

"This country has so many nationalities living here and we want to see some of them represented in our football team.

“Also this would give many more players the opportunity to play international football that they would not have had as their own country would not play them."

And a bit on the subsequent rejection by the congress today: http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...?docId=7019206

FIFA members rejected an attempt by the United Arab Emirates on Wednesday to speed up allegiance changes by foreign-born players.

The UAE got only 42 votes at the FIFA Congress for its proposal to relax eligibility rules, and allow players aged over 18 to switch after three years' residence instead of five. Following FIFA advice, 153 countries voted against and 11 abstained.

"It seems we are playing with national identity which is the foundation of national teams," FIFA legal committee chairman Angel Maria Villar said before the poll.

UAE football president Mohamed al-Rumaithi had argued change was good for countries trying to qualify for the World Cup.

"Especially for countries which have a small population," Al-Rumaithi suggested. "Along with local talents, we have many expatriate players."

However, the proposal was interpreted as route for richer countries to import overseas players with offers of citizenship.

In 2008, FIFA increased the residency requirement to five years from two, which was seen a fast-track option.

Why didn't the IFA propose a change to articles 15 or 18?

Anyway, as long as the chairman of FIFA's legal committee is saying things like, "national identity ... is the foundation of national teams", and the vast majority of associations are in total agreement with this, there's not a hope that articles 15 or 18 will ever be amended to conform to the IFA's stance.

[DannyInvincible]

That gulf state being Qatar who were trying to get a gaggle of Brazilians.

Edit: or the UAE. I thought Qatar were up to that as well. Or maybe they used the UAE as a cover.

Yeah, Qatar were up to no good a few years ago in 2004 and FIFA put an abrupt stop to it. They were issuing German-based Brazilians who I'm not even sure were ever resident in Qatar with Qatari citizenship for the sole purpose of having them line out for the international team, so FIFA, upon receiving word of the players' intentions, introduced more stringent rules for naturalised players representing national teams after an emergency committee came to meet. After the meeting, FIFA required naturalised players to have undergone two years of residence in order to qualify to play for a particular country, although this was later raised to five years. It remains so currently. Having had a parent or grandparent born in the territory of the relevant association would also have sufficed and still does. This rule-change only applies to naturalised players or players acquiring a new nationality; not those whose nationality is permanent and not dependent on residence.

The UAE made their proposal only recently and had it rejected by the congress just a few hours ago today, but I'd imagine the Qatari association were one of the members to vote in favour of it.

[Stuttgart88]

This rule-change only applies to naturalised players or players acquiring a new nationality; not those whose nationality is permanent and not dependent on residence.

Permanent?

[ArdeeBhoy]

I don't have any loyal sensitivities

From personal experience I'd dispute that!

it's either unique Worldwide or pretty close to it).

And the situation in Britain with its 4 teams for 4 non-countries isn't?
Barring the Faroe Islands....

[DannyInvincible]

Came across this piece titled 'The Problems with Poaching' in a blog run by a NI sports fan/freelance journalist: http://alexgulrajani.weebly.com/2/po...-poaching.html

He attributes the NI game fan boycott to "poaching rearing its ugly head again", which we know to be untrue, and, rather irritatingly, refers to FIFA's statutes on eligibility as "a ruling", as if arbitrarily fleeting in nature, but that seems fairly standard by now, unfortunately.

Given the politically sensitive nature of the situation Northern Ireland find themselves in, there is no practical solution. At club football, if a player doesn’t want to represent that shirt, he’s better off out of it.

Unfortunately for Worthington and the IFA, they don’t have a wealth of talent waiting to don the Green and White shirt. With a population of under 2m, he has a small catchment to start with.

And he’s already cast that net out wide – luring in Derby-born Lee Camp, Burnley-born Oliver Norwood, Sheffield-born Jonny Gorman and Harlow-born (whoop whoop) Adam Thompson.

Worthington is happy to reel in anyone he can that is good enough, and eligible, to play for NI. But this is different to what has happened to NI.

These lads have decided they’re not going to make it with their country of birth – England – and more importantly, England don’t want them. One they might have wanted to keep, Lee Camp, hadn’t been on their radar since his U21 days until his intentions to play with NI were public.

The case of Ferguson is of particular interest as he would be regarded as a future starlet after his debut season in the Premier League with Newcastle and Worthington doesn’t have two many top flight players at his disposal. In this current squad, he has only three – Steve Davis, Nial McGinn and Gareth McAuley who has just moved to WBA.

The issues here are money and development. As long as Northern Irish nationals (and other UK nationals) can access an Irish passport and have Irish nationality, the switching of allegiance will happen.

...

Should the FAI contribute to development in NI? No.

Why? Because it sounds like a partnership and gives the FAI license to ‘purchase’ whoever they want.

What we need is individual tribunals from FIFA for EVERY single case with an individual settlement for EVERY player.

The other solution?

Convince the players, families and communities that they can, and should be, part of Northern Ireland. Get rid of the national anthem, lose the Union flags and build a strong identity that includes all.

That may be hard but it may be the only solution while FIFA drags it's heels.

First of all, FIFA isn't dragging its heals. The persistence of this myth that FIFA has failed to provide clarification or is dodging something here is increasingly annoying considering there are clear rules in place over which an independent judicial body, CAS, has provided ample clarification in a long and detailed judgment. FIFA sided with the FAI in the Kearns case, so its position should not be unclear to anyone, even if they missed the organisation's reiterations on the primacy of its statutes and their application to the Irish eligibility question.

Anyway, the problem with this settlement argument is that it still appears to cast individual players as possessions of associations. The reality is that choice still ultimately rests with dual national players, regardless of an association's future hopes and intentions for that player. Who's to say with any certainty that Lee Camp, for example, wouldn't have been considered an option for England years down the line if his progress and development at club level were to somehow put him in the reckoning? It's unlikely, beyond some sort of English international keeper crisis, but the point is that nobody can say with any certainty. Ought the FA argue for compensation to be paid to them by the IFA under such circumstances? And what would stop them claiming they'd actually had future intentions for him anyway after he'd already been tied down to NI simply in order to extract money from the IFA? Such a system would be vulnerable to rampant abuse.

Even if a northern-born player wasn't to declare for the FAI, it would still be his right to refuse to represent the IFA regardless. By the same token, will there be calls for, say, George McCartney to recompense the IFA for his refusal to represent NI due what I originally believe to have been a disagreement with the IFA, or Lawrie Sanchez in particular? If we were to take the idea further, maybe we could be claiming compensation from Stephen Ireland. Or what about those players who are deemed to have retired "prematurely" from the international game by fans and association? Should an association have the right to dictate that these individuals still owe something back to the association - that they ever owed something to the association - and thereby either force them to play on or pay compensation? It's a ridiculous idea through and through.

If the concept of compensation was introduced into international football, it would necessitate the invocation of original contractual obligations; that would destroy the essence of international football as a voluntary endeavour.

For someone that has studied the Irish identity in sport and society, I understand (as an outsider) that the bond between a citizen and country isn’t fully in bloodlines and the lines are blurred especially when you don’t even recognise Northern Ireland as a separate entity.

You can’t help where you are born. If you are born into a Republic-supporting family that is the upbringing you have.

Well, at least that's a start...

[ArdeeBhoy]

Hmm, the last quote. An 'outsider' apologist acknowledging the concept of 'Diaspora'.

Surely not?

[SwanVsDalton]

One for you here DI:

http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/06/02/...thern-ireland/

I'm very disappointed, Slugger I find a fairly interesting and informed forum of debate but yet more total misunderstanding of eligibility rules. If you had the inclination DI, I think a proper response directed to Mick Fealty might be in order.

[Charlie Darwin]

That blog post is a disaster.

[SwanVsDalton]

Totally. Although the secondary points from Parsley are decent, they're totally undermined, yet again, but a complete ignorance of the eligibility rules. Then having someone I respect like Fealty coming along to give it the thumbs-up is just too much...

[geysir]

Wasn't Ian Parsley a spoof character in the Navan Man sketches?

"Firstly, the case itself was straightforward and yet the IFA managed to blow it."
"How that case was lost by the IFA is beyond me."

Like yourself Ian, the IFA didn't have the foggiest.

[DannyInvincible]

One for you here DI:

http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/06/02/...thern-ireland/

I'm very disappointed, Slugger I find a fairly interesting and informed forum of debate but yet more total misunderstanding of eligibility rules. If you had the inclination DI, I think a proper response directed to Mick Fealty might be in order.

I've never posted on Slugger before, but I presume it's just a matter of posting my reply to Mick Fealty in the space provided beneath his entry and all the other comments? I'm not all that savvy to how to amend post lay-outs and such on there either, but I doubt it matters a huge deal. Anyway, I'm going to post the following, unless you think I ought to add something:

@Mick Fealty

I find it both bewildering and inexplicable how such an astounding level of confusion still reigns over player eligibility in spite of the fact that there are clear rules in place to govern it (see articles 15-18 of FIFA’s Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...uten2010_e.pdf), over which an independent judicial body, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, has provided ample clarification in a long, thorough and detailed judgment (see here: http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...ard%202071.pdf).

This issue didn’t arise out of any “rule change”. Players born in the north have been lining out for FAI teams under FIFA rules similar to those in place today even before the Good Friday Agreement. The likes of Ger Crossley, Gerard Doherty, Mark McKeever and Tony Shields - all northern-born - played for FAI teams between 1995 and 1997. There have been countless others to play for Irish teams between the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and the Darron Gibson saga that seemed to implant the issue in the minds of NI football supporters. The Good Friday Agreement has nothing to do with the application of FIFA’s statutes on Irish nationality so it's frustrating to see it continually bandied about in discussions surrounding player eligibility, especially when the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals to play for Ireland is being attributed to its terms.

Anyway, onto Ian Parsley’s post... You'd think a qualified referee with an interest in the governing rules of the game might have gone to the effort of actually reading and comprehending FIFA's statutes before writing about them. Contrary to your belief, Parsley’s post isn’t the slightest bit “great” at all. In fact, Parsley has as scant and suspect an understanding of FIFA’s rules on eligibility as the IFA he seeks to condemn had when they took their appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Parsley erroneously states:

“In the same way that a British passport does not qualify me to play for Scotland (because I was not born there and nor were any of my parents or grandparents), an Irish passport does not quality me to play for the Republic of Ireland (for the same reason). The 1998 Agreement clearly makes the population of Northern Ireland “British”, “Irish” or both; the qualification requirement remains, however, that the player or parents or grandparents must be born within the jurisdiction.”

Contrary to Parsley’s mistaken belief, a permanent Irish nationality not dependent on residence qualifies anyone in possession of it to play for Ireland, as is outlined in article 15 of FIFA’s Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes. It states:

“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.”

A British passport would not deem Parsley eligible for Scotland for the reason that article 16 ensures that in the case of a single nationality that might normally entitle a player to play for more than one association - id est, British nationality, which would otherwise allow the holder to declare for England, NI, Scotland or Wales - additional criteria will come into effect. Article 16 was specifically included in the FIFA statute book in order to regulate eligibility for the British associations and reads as follows:

“A Player who, under the terms of art. 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions:

a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years.”

This article has no implications for those who possess Irish nationality as Irish nationality permits those who possess it to declare for only one country; Ireland.

If anyone seeks as complete an understanding of this issue as is available, I suggest they have a read of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s judgment in the case of Daniel Kearns. Indeed, as Parsley says, that case was very straightforward - the IFA were always going to lose it - but the IFA lost it under the same misunderstanding from which Parsley is currently suffering; that the terms and conditions outlined in article 16 applied to northern-born Irish nationals.

[SwanVsDalton]

Sounds good to me DI, great post. The only thing I'd add would be to underline the continual ignorance around the eligibility issues in outlets such as the Belfast Telegraph. Maybe release some frustration on the issue - Slugger's as good a place to get a dig in as any!

And yeah it's simply a case of posting in the box underneath once you've registered.

[Stuttgart88]

Danny, you should write a letter to the Belfast Telegraph for publication.

[BonnieShels]

Wonderful post Danny.

One thing this line "There have been countless others to play for Irish teams..." This doesn't read right to me.

[geysir]

The 'id est' bit is impressive. Throwing in the bit of latin brings it onto another level.