This Uefa commttee have stopped Jersey's plea
"Uefa's executive will not allow their congress to discuss Jersey's bid as the island is not recognised by the United Nations as an independent nation."
Jersey say the Uefa exec have overplayed their hand.
The definition of what constitutes a country is wide and varied and probably because of that, Uefa have inserted just one criteria, namely UN recognition.
It's too late for Jersey to use Gib as a precedent, because Gib first applied to become a member before Uefa inserted the one criteria "recognised by the United Nations as an independent state".
However Kosovo was accepted by Uefa recently as a member, even although Kosovo is not recognised by the UN.
Uefa statute 5
Membership of UEFA is open to national football associations. Members situated in the continent of Europe, based in a country which isrecognised by the United Nations as an independent state, andwhich are responsible for the organisation and implementation offootball-related matters in the territory of their country.
Last edited by geysir; 07/10/2016 at 2:47 PM.
I think very technically, they've inserted a second criterion (you can't have "one criteria" any more than you can have "one countries") - that you have to be England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.Originally Posted by geysir
But it's a tricky question, and in the end of the day, you can't have every island trying to get in and get a rake of money. There has to be a line somewhere. I've no real idea where that line is though.
What is the cash amount likely to be for someone like Jersey/Gibraltar/Kosovo, aside from the gates? I don't actually know what kind of money national FA's get from TV rights or the like, though the sponsorship opportunities seem obvious. What development funds have Gib gotten so far?
Last edited by NeverFeltBetter; 07/10/2016 at 3:50 PM.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Well you get club teams into European competition for a start - so that's E200k/team less expenses of course.
TV money for the qualifiers is big and growing I think; that's why qualifiers are now spread over three nights instead of on one night.
There's additional funds like UEFA Solidarity, UEFA funds to cover licencing, etc.
I'd say it'd be well worth Jersey's while, financially, getting into FIFA.
I don't see a second criterion for defining a country, the other criteria mentioned in that statute are for the FA.
It would appear at least in the case of Kosovo, that individual Uefa voting members can make up their own minds as to what constitutes a valid Uefa membership appeal and what is an invalid appeal.
In the case of Kosovo, the only criterion existing in the matter (UN recognition) was put aside as not being flexible enough to define a country's status as a bone fide independent state. But in the case of Jersey, the absence of UN recognition was used as a reason to deny them a vote on the matter at the AGM, by the wider membership.
Re this singular UN recognition criterion, at least Kosovo has recognition in part from 109 UN members whereas Jersey is a total non-country in the eyes of the UN.
Actually, I'm looking at FIFA statutues, not UEFA statutes. Technically, FIFA membership is open to the FAs of countries (and it then defines "country"), or to the FAs of England/NI/Scotland/Wales. The conclusion is that England/NI/Scotland/Wales is a second definition of "countries" in the statutes. UEFA just say that the "country" criterion doesn't apply to England, etc.
Curiously, FIFA statutes don't mention UN recognition; a country is just one recognised as such by the international community. Not sure why the difference there.
It doesn't really have any relevance on the point you were making; I just like that there's a explicit rule in the statutes to allow England/NI/Scotland/Wales special exemption to play international football.
The FIFA statutes on membership have gone through various transitions.The 2016 issue has no definition of a country, just that a FIFA member should already be a member of their confederation.
The Nr 5. "Each of the four British associations shall be recognised as a separate member association of FIFA" is more likely to have been inserted at the vehement behest of our more paranoid UK associations. It's not needed, except in the paranoid reality (prob of the IFA) to protect themselves, that any possible FIFA move to shift the 4 UK associations into one association, would need to go to a congress vote.
Afaia, Uefa refused entry to Gib, then belatedly inserted the UN recognition criterion into the statutes. CAS upheld Gib's appeal, namely that the criterion did not exist when Gib applied, therefore their membership application should have gone to a vote and the vote to consider that application should take place as if the criterion did not exist.
A time space reversal thing.
If we assume that time space legitimacy for Gib and accept that the rest of those members (UK/Faroes) on the exemption list were already established members of Uefa before the UN recognition was inserted, then those members do not actually need to be listed as exempt, as they were already members before that recognition clause was inserted into the statutes.
But now we have Kosovo as a member and there is no clause in the statutes which states that Uefa can make an exception to the UN recognition criterion.
Just as there is a clause existing which states they can make an exception to allow in a member (Israel) from outside Europe.
Probably Uefa will have to put in an exception clause to the UN recognition thing and hope they get away with the Kosovo vote. Platini could have fixed that one with some msap (money solves all problems).
Is this not the current statues? April 2016.
Defines "country" as "an independent state recognised by the international community" at the start.
Members must already be in their own contintental confederation, but they also must be representing a country.
Anyways, semantics.
Yes I see that definition now, I hadn't before.
However in the membership section of the statutes, a member association does not have to represent a country.
"An association in a region which has not yet gained independence may, with
the authorisation of the member association in the country on which it is
dependent, also apply for admission to FIFA"
Also, we can say Kosovo is a country, recognised to some extent in the international community but not recognised to the full extent in the international community that it can be called a bone fide country just yet. Therefore imo, Fifa doesn't outline the definition of a member association /country like Uefa does with it's compulsory UN recognition tag.
Jersey's bid to join UEFA rejected after CAS insisted their case be heard: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43183023
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Basque FA applies to FIFA: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2020...r-recognition/
I assume they haven't a hope, but it raises an interesting question about where the line gets drawn, again. After all, they are a self-governing region of a larger state - a Kingdom united you might say - with a very firm identity of their own.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
England, Scotland, Wales and the NI are only in FIFA because there's a very specific legacy clause allowing them to be members.
Not really sure what they're aiming at here - you would imagine that they clearly aren't a country under the current definition ("an independent state recognised by the international community", as noted above), so they've no chance of membership. Are they applying just because to do so was voted on at an AGM?
There's times I wonder what holds Spain together to be honest.
If their application were to be successful it would add another potentially tricky opponent into the mix for Euro/WC Qualification. Would essentially be Athletic Bilbao.
Another question - and it's rhetorical as I don't think they'll get in - is would Spain refuse to play them?
There's a lot of those "political" clashes which UEFA avoid, and I think it's daft. Let Armenia and Azerbaijan be drawn against each other. Let Spain play Gibraltar and Serbia play Kosovo, like we had to play the North back in the day. You don't get to pick and choose your opponents in qualifying matches.
I assume they would refuse.
I tend to agree on the other point. North and South Korea play each other, and have actually done so plenty of times. Maybe a neutral ground for ties if there is a fear of nationalist violence or something, but that's as far as I'd go.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Yeah, I think if countries want to refuse to play each other, they can default matches and be fined for it. **** 'em if they inject politics into sport.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks