Whilst not Sovereign States, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are commonly regarded and referred to as countries - including by UEFA & FIFA, who recognise the autonomy of each's national Association.Originally Posted by pineapple stu
They are, of course, the four oldest national Associations.
I'm certainly not getting "het up" about it - I'll leave that to others who feel that the United Kingdom should only be represented by one national Association.
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...
That is not relevant.
Of course the 4 UK associations are autonomous as their autonomy has been recognized in the FIFA statutes.
Common usage of the term "country" to refer to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does not cut the mustard in regards to what FIFA define as a "country" 'it shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international community.'
One British nationality for 4 associations does not meet that definition.
Therefore there is a ruling inserted into the statutes
'Each of the four British Associations is recognised as a separate Member of FIFA.
Clearly, UEFA & FIFA consider England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be countries in the context of participating in international football.
It would seem the FIFA definition would proclude the idea of a singular "Irish" representative team.
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 think there are bigger issues ahead of having a singular Ireland team.
Eh no, a participating association given permission to represent a region, does not mean FIFA recognize that region to be a country.
Likewise, the 4 UK home nations do not qualify to be recognized as a country, by the definition that FIFA uses in its rulebook, just because FIFA recognizes an association to be a member
NI is not a country 'an independent state recognised by the international community'It would seem the FIFA definition would proclude the idea of a singular "Irish" representative team
I don't know what the situation would likely be should the 2 associations decide to apply for permission to have one representative team.
I think the Tibet thing is to do with political pressure from China mainly.
Again, explained better in the book.
In fact, clearly UEFA and FIFA don't consider those four as countries or else they wouldn't have made membership rules read "You must either be a country or be England/Scotland/Wales/NI".
I'm not really sure why you're debating this point given how clearly I've backed it up?
Last edited by pineapple stu; 16/10/2011 at 11:00 PM.
Just as a sidenote and to boast.... I just got invited to referee at the VIVA World Cup in Kurdistan in 2012.. ha ha.. deadly..And it was all thanks to this thread..thanks foot.ie
All thanks to this thread?! Do tell...?
The Catalan and Basque selections are endorsed by the Spanish FA. There might be the odd person looking for seperate 'nationall' teams on the back of these games, but the Spanish FA still allows them (as they obviously don't see it as a valid threat to them)
Obviously players can play for botht eh regional team, and the Spanish national team so its not really an issue
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Just wondering, do you think Greenland would go to CONCACAF or UEFA? I'd assume UEFA just because of their affiliation, though would have a better chance of qualifying for the Gold Cup (or in theory the World Cup) in CONCACAF. Anyway if anyone surprised that FIFA is full of crooks they are incredibly ignorant.
My Guarantee
Am looking for old Irish matches on VHS, PM me if you have some and I'll upload them here
They want UEFA - they're a European-orientated country if nothing else, and there's more money in UEFA than anywhere else (hence Kazakhstan's switch)
Remember it's for the club competitions as well, and the prize money out of that too. It'd be small for them, but presumably more than CONCACAF.
I remember reading about VIVA world cup two years ago in WSC but completely forgot about it. This thread reminded me of it.. so I emailed the organisers about details etc and about my refereeing grade and level. They replied immediately inviting me to be the first Irish referee to participate in the event. Be quite a thing to be involved in for the craic and one for the autobiography on the road to Russia in 2018....any sound foot.ie for reminding me..
To be honest, I think the fairest way of doing it is "devolved powers, devolved football team". If a region has enough of a separate identity to decide issues like tax, education, and infrastructure, they have enough of a separate identity to field their own representative international side.
Of course, the devil would be in the details, with regard to dual eligibility, players who wish to play for Spain, for example. Are all Catalunyans eligible for Spain? Which Spaniards would be eligible for Catalunya? And then you could get crazy situations, such as a player with four grandparents, one from French Basque Country, one from Spanish Catalunya, one from Turkish Kurdistan, and one from Tibet, making him eligible for France, Spain, Turkey, China, Basque Country, Catalunya, Kurdistan and Tibet!
Then, of course, you get into the issue of the international status of the US states. Take things too far, and you could have a CONCACAF world cup qualified between Idaho and British Columbia
FIFA grant Kosovo permission to play friendlies - a fair compromise while their UN membership remains in limbo, expect Gibraltar, Jersey and Greenland among others to apply for similar status now that the precedent has been set.
Probably due a bump given the pending Gibraltar situation as discussed here...
http://foot.ie/threads/63100-World-Ranking/page24
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
See discussion as posted by Stutts.
http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligib...=1#post1678679
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Copied over, just to put next post in context.
I was at a great talk last night, Steve Menary talking about his book and largely focusing on the Gibraltar case. 3 senior guys from the Gibraltar FA came along to support the talk
In a nutshell:
- To become a FIFA member a country needs to be (a) in its regional confederation and (b) a country recognised by the UN.
- Rule (b) above only came in after Gibraltar applied first in 1999. The 4 UK countries don't tick box (b) at the moment, as do a few other members.
- Gibraltar applied for UEFA membership in 1999 and again I think in 2007. Each time it was unsuccessful. Mainly because of Spain's disapproval, or just general ignorance of the facts.
- There are dozens of small countries with FIFA membership, especially since Jack Warner went around the Caribbean getting every former island colony and dependency to apply.
- FIFA distributes grants (over $1mm in many cases - not bad for some tiny islands) hence the financial importance of membership.
- Together a lot of these countries brought in by Warner account for 10% of the global voting power within FIFA. A tiny island has the same voting power as England or Germany.
- Many of these islands have no proper leagues and struggle to field a proper international team of locally born and reared players (no jokes here about Ireland please!!).
- Some hardly even play any games and many have only recently established FAs
- Gibraltar has had a FA since 1895 and has thousands playing the game at all levels, and has a domestic league - 6 in top tier, 12 in second. There is a deep pyramid system in place.
- Spain has offered them a place in their league system on condition they withdraw their UEFA application. GFA don't want this (a) on principle and (b) because any financial benefit would only go to the elite tip of the pyramid. FIFA membership would fund the whole system.
- They feel that the last vote went against them (only 3 out of 52 nations voted in favour of admitting them) because many of the dissenters were simply unaware of the details, although Spain's negative influence was a factor. A technical factor meant they only had 2 weeks to lobby last time and this was far too short to get the message across,
- Gibraltar has over 20 other sports fully affiliated into European structures. Only football remains unrecognised.
- CAS has ruled in favour of Gib's admittance to UEFA on 3 separate occasions.
- Next vote is just before the CL final in May. From what I heard it would be a travesty if it was blocked again. Gib has ticked every single box and has a genuine football culture and infrastructure, more so than many existing members. Simple majority required. There are now 53 members.
- Gib's campaign is branded "Team 54"
- RoI, Wales & Scotland were the 3 to vote in their favour last time.
- Jim Boyce was not in favour and just after he voted against (or abstained) he got his big FIFA promotion
- They like the new IFA president, Jim Shaw. They speak very highly of him.
- They also speak very highly of the FAI who have always supported them. Apparently the FAI refused to take their share of a recent U19 game gate receipt (2,000 attended) against RoI in Gib. Gib gets no funding other than from local corporates (Ken Early take note!), gate receipts and some public sector funding.
- They do now have second-tier recognition, but not full membership - so they can play underage and futsal internationals now.
- There was also discussion on Kosovo, Greenland and others. Gibraltar seemingly has a stronger legal case as they have long complied with every criterion for membership. I think there is therefore no danger of a precedent making things awkard with regard to politically difficult cases like Catalonia or South Ossetia, for example.
- There was also discussion of how the French have kept their Departements and Territoires des Outres Mers largely outside of independent FIFA membership (unlike Dutch overseas dependencies for example) and the FFF looks after these "countries" financially. I think one or two of these "countries" are FIFA members, maybe Guadeloupe and one other? There is a bi-annual tournament in Paris for the DOMs & TOMs, regularly supported by the likes of Karembeu and Malouda.
We had drinks in a local pub with the 3 GFA guys afterwards who were just lovely guys, so passionate, charming and polite. There was video footage shown of them crying after they beat San Marino in a futsal international! I really hope they're successful.
They gave me permission to post all this so this is not in breach of the Chatham House Rules that applied.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 19/04/2013 at 10:17 AM.
I'll just grab the liberty of making two snips from your post just for the purposes of focus
I appreciate that you're taking notes from this meeting, but this one needs a bit more expansion
FIFA don't require a country to be a country recognised by the UN, in order for FIFA to recognise it as a member country. It's just not in the FIFA rules.
The FIFA statutes state a "country" shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international community."
It's the UEFA statutes that require an applicant member to be recognised by the UN.
UEFA Article 5
1 Membership of UEFA is open to national football associations
Members situated in the continent of Europe, based in a country which is recognised by the United Nations as an independent state, and which are responsible for the organisation and implementation of football-related matters in the territory of their country.
Therefore the catch 22 exists, an applicant member to FIFA should already be a member of their confederation for 2 years.
There looks to be no way Gib can become a UEFA member especially in the light of the treatment meted out to Kosova's application for UEFA membership.
except for a legal technicality blooper by UEFA
The GFA applied to join UEFA in 1999 but shortly after, the European body changed its membership criteria so that all new members had to be recognized as countries by the United Nations.
This move was not made retrospective, allowing the four British Home Nations and the Faroe Islands to retain membership, and used to reject Gibraltar and bar subsequent new applicants such as Greenland and Kosovo.
Because the change was made after their application, the GFA went to CAS in 2006 and secured a ruling upholding their application but when Gibraltar’s potential membership went to a UEFA vote, the influential Spanish FIFA executive committee member Angel Maria Vilar Llona urged members to reject the colony. Of UEFA’s then 52 members, only England, Scotland and Wales supported Gibraltar.
I don't think Gibraltar have a (moral) earthly case compared to Kosova.There was also discussion on Kosovo, Greenland and others. Gibraltar seemingly has a stronger legal case as they have long complied with every criterion for membership.
Unfortunately you had no one there to state Kosova's situation. They are (imo) on the way to becoming full members of FIFA. Apparantly UEFA/Platini and Serbia are opposing their UEFA membership, Platini states they have to become a UN recognised state before UEFA will accept them.
But Kosova already have a majority of UN members on their side which satisfies FIFA's requirement for "an independent state recognised by the international community"
But FIFA's statutes say they require an applicant member to already be a member of their confederation for 2 years (UEFA in Kosova's case).
A sort of catch 22 for Kosova
However FIFA overruled UEFA to some extent and accepted Kosova as an associate member allowed to play senior international friendlies but this was pegged back by Platini/Serbia /Russia to just underage level internationals.
Standing in the way of Kosova's UN membership is Serbia supported by Russia's veto. But the EU are solidly behind Kosova's independence and Serbia's opposition to Kosova is standing in the way of their access to the EU.
Last edited by geysir; 19/04/2013 at 11:38 AM.
I'm not sure I understand. I don't have an opinion on the Kosovo case, but as Gib complied with everything needed in 1999 how can you say Gib's case is weaker than Kosovo's? My understanding is that Gib simply ticks every box. Leaving Kosovo aside, what makes you think Gib's case is less than rock solid (excuse the pun)? Is Gib not a UN member?
Steve Menary was there and I think he's familiar with the Kosovo situation too, also Greenland et al.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks