Eligibility Rules, Okay

[Not Brazil]

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.

An anomaly that would have threw the fundamental basis of eligibility out of the window.

The notion that someone without British Nationality could play for a British Association is, frankly, absurd.

Likewise, decreeing that Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland alone would make a player eligible for Northern Ireland - ie. Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland becoming a de facto "shared nationality" in the context of FiFA eligibility Statutes - without the provisos that apply to all other shared nationalities, is outrageous.

[geysir]

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.

Whether it is the case or not is just a point of discussion, namely the significance of incorporating a unique separate agreement into the Statutes after sitting 15 years on the sidelines.
Is it now the practice or not to have everything incorporated fully into the statutes?
The fact that a unique situation like the UK passport eligible for 4 associations could be addressed from 1993 up until 2008 with any direct refernence to it in the Statutes gives me a clear enough indication that the FIFA legal board thought they could address the Irish situation with a similar document in 2007.

[Not Brazil]

gives me a clear enough indication that the FIFA legal board thought they could address the Irish situation with a similar document in 2007.

Do you honestly believe that introducing a unique rule, creating an inequality (discrimination) against all other Nationalities that would ordinarily allow a player to pay for more than one Association, was ever going to get off the ground?

FIFA's Legal Department would certainly have been busy.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Likewise, decreeing that Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland alone would make a player eligible for Northern Ireland - ie. Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland becoming a de facto "shared nationality" in the context of FiFA eligibility Statutes - without the provisos that apply to all other shared nationalities, is outrageous.

Er, there is no such thing as this. If you're going to post stuff at least make it factually correct.

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=267

[geysir]

Do you honestly believe that introducing a unique rule, creating an inequality (discrimination) against all other Nationalities that would ordinarily allow a player to pay for more than one Association, was ever going to get off the ground?

FIFA's Legal Department would certainly have been busy.

As the Irish situation is a unique situation, I trust in the acumen of the FIFA legal department and that they would be able to construct a document,
an agreement regarding the eligibility of international players born on the island of Ireland, without any fuss or the least bit of controversy, in 2007.

The FIFA legal department have proven themselves able and proficient in the area of eligibility and to formulate legal documents and statutes.

[BonnieShels]

Er, there is no such thing as this. If you're going to post stuff at least make it factually correct.

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=267

He's getting there. Give it time.
At least he has stopped referring to the South.

[Not Brazil]

As the Irish situation is a unique situation, I trust in the acumen of the FIFA legal department and that they would be able to construct a document,
an agreement regarding the eligibility of international players born on the island of Ireland, without any fuss or the least bit of controversy, in 2007.

The FIFA legal department have proven themselves able and proficient in the area of eligibility and to formulate legal documents and statutes.

Blatantly constructed/manipulated inequality ie. discrimination would not be the way foward for FIFA and it's Lawyers.

No Lawyer, in my opinion, could defend a rule that favoured one nationality and disadvantaged all other nationalities that ordinarily would permit a player to represent more than one Association.

I believe that such a rule would be in breach of FIFA's own statutes on discrimination.

However, if you believe that players from this island are so especially unique as to disrupt the "global" eligibility rules of FIFA, don't let the real world awaken you.

[DannyInvincible]

Blatantly constructed/manipulated inequality ie. discrimination would not be the way foward for FIFA and it's Lawyers.

No Lawyer, in my opinion, could defend a rule that favoured one nationality and disadvantaged all other nationalities that ordinarily would permit a player to represent more than one Association.

I believe that such a rule would be in breach of FIFA's own statutes on discrimination.

However, if you believe that players from this island are so especially unique as to disrupt the "global" eligibility rules of FIFA, don't let the real world awaken you.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but the perspective from which look at the 2007 proposal mildly grates with me; your phraseology in this and previous posts would almost suggest that the benefit of Irish nationals was FIFA's guiding motive, as if Irish nationals were somehow culpable. The primary intent of FIFA's proposal, albeit misguided, was to benefit the IFA; not necessarily Irish nationals. Irish nationals just happened to be the bargaining token offered, if you will.

Anyway, it was FIFA's lawyers who suggested the proposal, so, incredible proposal rooted in illogic and inequality or not, there's no reason to believe they weren't prepared to both defend it and, if required, construct a legal framework to enable its operation.

[geysir]

Blatantly constructed/manipulated inequality ie. discrimination would not be the way foward for FIFA and it's Lawyers.

No Lawyer, in my opinion, could defend a rule that favoured one nationality and disadvantaged all other nationalities that ordinarily would permit a player to represent more than one Association.

I believe that such a rule would be in breach of FIFA's own statutes on discrimination.

However, if you believe that players from this island are so especially unique as to disrupt the "global" eligibility rules of FIFA, don't let the real world awaken you.

Contrary to your opinion of the FIFA legal department, they are lawyers, well versed in eligibility issues. If you have some example where they failed a legal challenge on an eligibility issue, then please offer it. I trust their belief over what would work within the Statutes than yours.

[Not Brazil]

Contrary to your opinion of the FIFA legal department, they are lawyers, well versed in eligibility issues. If you have some example where they failed a legal challenge on an eligibility issue, then please offer it. I trust their belief over what would work within the Statutes than yours.

The bogey man is discrimination - Article 3, as it is now.

You're the pundit suggesting that an Association's selection policy based squarely on developing players who wish to play for the Association at senior international level (and proactively facilitating those who don't) might fall foul of FIFA's Statutes on discrimination, but that a rule disadvantaging all players with a nationality that would ordinarily allow them to represent more than one Association, except those players with Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, would not.

I find that bizarre.

[Not Brazil]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but the perspective from which look at the 2007 proposal mildly grates with me; your phraseology in this and previous posts would almost suggest that the benefit of Irish nationals was FIFA's guiding motive, as if Irish nationals were somehow culpable. The primary intent of FIFA's proposal, albeit misguided, was to benefit the IFA; not necessarily Irish nationals. Irish nationals just happened to be the bargaining token offered, if you will.

Anyway, it was FIFA's lawyers who suggested the proposal, so, incredible proposal rooted in illogic and inequality or not, there's no reason to believe they weren't prepared to both defend it and, if required, construct a legal framework to enable its operation.

Don't let the paranoia set in DI - it's not your style.

I'm not suggesting that Republic Of Ireland Nationals are in any way at fault. I'm quite sure their rights extend just as far as any other Citizen of any other Nation...but no further.

I am suggesting that a by product of granting de facto "shared nationality" status in terms of Association representation to Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland would be Article 6 coming into play - and, if, FIFA made exception then for Republic Of Ireland Nationals regarding Article 6they would potentially leave themselves wide open to charges of inequality ie. discrimination.

Granting Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland eligibility to play for the Irish Football Association is a total car crash of an idea - for all concerned - as we agree.

[geysir]

The bogey man is discrimination - Article 3, as it is now.

You're the pundit suggesting that an Association's selection policy based squarely on developing players who wish to play for the Association at senior international level (and proactively facilitating those who don't) might fall foul of FIFA's Statutes on discrimination,

I didn't suggest that
I wrote in reply to Danny
"I have absolutely no idea on the matter if a policy of discriminating with available young talent based on loyalty aspiration, which is nationality based, could be proven to conflict with anything in article 3. Never thought about that."

However I did respectfully explain to Danny why I thought the French federation's proposal for racial quotas would conflict with article 3, if they had a chance to implement it. And as far as I recall, Danny concurred.

but that a rule disadvantaging all players with a nationality that would ordinarily allow them to represent more than one Association, except those players with Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland, would not, I find that bizarre

Seeing as part one of your reply is bull, the 2nd part is redundant.

[Not Brazil]

"I have absolutely no idea on the matter if a policy of discriminating with available young talent based on loyalty aspiration, which is nationality based, could be proven to conflict with anything in article 3. Never thought about that."

What about a discriminatory rule, creating inequality...you'd "trust" FIFA's lawyers on that?

Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland are not "special" cases

They are just the same as everyone else, and deserve the same trteatment as everyone else.

Is that not what everyone told us when the issue was raising it's head - or, is there a feeling that the exception be when being treated the same as everybody else doesn't suit, and then it's "special", or "unique"?

[geysir]

What about

What about, what about? take a moment to pause and reflect on the nonsense you have just posted previously and acknowledge it.

What about a discriminatory rule, creating inequality...you'd "trust" FIFA's lawyers on that?

I trust FIFA's lawyers on matters of eligibility infinitely more time than I trust in the value of your perceptions on such a compromise document, I might add, a perceptive quality of yours, which (especially of late) has been shown to be quite erroneous and cynical.

[Not Brazil]

I trust FIFA's lawyers on matters of eligibility infinitely more time than I trust in the value of your perceptions on such a compromise document, I might add, a perceptive quality of yours, which (especially of late) has been shown to be quite erroneous and cynical.

Would you offer any indication of how you would envisage such a "compromise document" would read?

I'm struggling to see how a "compromise document" for the Irish issue, would not discriminate.

Perhaps, they may have just scrapped Annex 2 altogether.

[DannyInvincible]

Don't let the paranoia set in DI - it's not your style.

It was very subtly contrived, but I suppose I can let it slide for an incurable unionist.

On the whole issue of the proposal introducing inequality/discrimination into the mix, there are different types of "discrimination":

1. There's what you might call neutral or necessary discrimination. Discrimination between nationals for the purpose of determining eligibility for national teams might be a good example. Irish nationals aren't eligible to play for Brazil, for obvious reasons, nor can they then cry foul and claim they're being discriminated against on the basis of their nationality. Such would defeat the fundamental purpose of international football.
2. Then there's what you might call positive discrimination or affirmative action; favouring a group that you perceive to be suffering from a disadvantage in order to create practical rather than theoretical equilibrium, for example.
3. And there's malign discrimination. That'd be the nasty sort, such as an association refusing to select players on the basis of their ethnic or racial background. The FFF's potential racial quotas might have fallen into this bracket.

"Discrimination" is a wishy-washy, ambiguous term and obviously not all of the above would fall under the intent of article 3 of the statutes. Quite possibly, only the third type would fall under FIFA's definition of "discrimination". I can see how FIFA could easily have painted their 2007 proposal as necessary, for example, in order to reach an amicable solution, or even as positive in order to produce advantageous or favourable conditions for the IFA against what it then perceived to be an imbalance.

[Not Brazil]

I can see how FIFA could easily have painted their 2007 proposal as necessary, for example, in order to reach an amicable solution, or even as positive in order to produce advantageous or favourable conditions for the IFA against what it then perceived to be an imbalance.

We'll have to agree to differ on this - I have more pressing things to do, like get out in the sunshine on a putting green. The fact
that I have been putting like a GPO motorbike in recent weeks, bordering on "the yips" is, in truth, of exceedingly more concern to me than a discussion on what might have happened if a certain course of action had been taken in relation to footballers from this island in 2007.

I equate inequality with discrimination.

I cannot see any circumstances under which a "shared nationality" should be advantaged (or disadvantaged) over another "shared nationality" - even if you are from the island of Ireland

[Olé Olé]

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.

Gent and a scholar. Have yet to get under the legal skin of the issue, will endeavour to do so.

[DannyInvincible]

I equate inequality with discrimination.

I do too, but you can have what one might call positive, neutral or malign inequality in the very same way. Isn't affirmative action an example of unequal treatment in theory in order to create greater equality in practice?

I cannot see any circumstances under which a "shared nationality" should be advantaged (or disadvantaged) over another "shared nationality" - even if you are from the island of Ireland

Nor, evidently, did the IFA. FIFA proposed exactly that though, no matter how warped it might seem.

[ArdeeBhoy]

He's getting there. Give it time.
At least he has stopped referring to the South.

I think that's just a temporary blip?

Erm.

I'm not suggesting that Republic Of Ireland Nationals are in any way at fault. I'm quite sure their rights extend just as far as any other Citizen of any other Nation...but no further.

I am suggesting that a by product of granting de facto "shared nationality" status in terms of Association representation to Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland would be Article 6 coming into play - and, if, FIFA made exception then for Republic Of Ireland Nationals regarding Article 6 they would potentially leave themselves wide open to charges of inequality ie. discrimination.

Granting Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland eligibility to play for the Irish Football Association is a total car crash of an idea - for all concerned - as we agree.

Except no such concept or citizenship exists. Is it really that hard to say the word , 'Irish' ??

If someone can't even get the basics right, especially when they have consistently derided others for such, why would they even have an iota of credibility...