FIFA and Non Sovereign States

Because I have his business card at work and I don't go back to work until Tuesday. The gate money was from a recent u19 match between Gib and IRL; we were entitled to half but declined to take it.

I'm sure he can't wait...

Not that he's liable to tell us the truth.

And half the gate money of an U-19 match; a €100?

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

I'm sure he can't wait...

Not that he's liable to tell us the truth.

And half the gate money of an U-19 match; a €100?

Attendance of 1,500 @ £5 a pop = £7,500/2 = £3,750 - whatever proportion of the crowd were kids, still works out at a couple of grand and nothing to be sniffed at for a small FA with a legal bill to service.

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I'll email him on Tuesday and ask. But he did say that the Irish have always supported them and even waived their share of the U19 gate money in solidarity.

Politically, the FAI should have no choice in not voting in Gibraltar, If they did, they are beyond stupid. It is almost the exact same position as Northern Ireland, ie, occupying a land that is not theirs.

Huh? The FAI isn't a political organisation, and the state of Ireland no longer has a claim over Northern Ireland.

And Gibraltar isn't and never will be a country...
Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by TheBoss

Politically, the FAI should have no choice in not voting in Gibraltar, If they did, they are beyond stupid. It is almost the exact same position as Northern Ireland, ie, occupying a land that is not theirs.

I believe both Northern Ireland and Gibraltar were gained by the UK in legally-negotiated treaties, agreed on by both sides, democratically in favour of being ruled by the UK, and have been so for the past several generations.

Whatever about their ancestors, unionists today have a right to live in Northern Ireland, and decide their own fate, without it being forced on them by over-zealous Republicans. Same as Gibraltar.

Interestingly, Gibraltar was in Spanish hands for only 200 years (1501 to 1704, after the Moors were pushed out, and before the Treaty of Utrecht), it's been in British hands, populated by British people, for the past 300.

I would have thought Irish people would know better than to suggest that territory should automatically belong to the nearest large power simply because of geographical location.

Even if the 'native' population there was based on illegal settlement there and subsequent archaic colonialism.

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Even if the 'native' population there was based on illegal settlement there and subsequent archaic colonialism.

When that happened 400 years ago, yes. Current unionists living in Northern Ireland today should not be exiled or have a Dublin government undemocratically imposed upon them because of how their great-great-grandparents got there. Ireland has as much "historical" claim to the North as Connacht and Breifne do to being independent kingdoms. The people of Northern Ireland should be able to freely, fairly and democratically decide their status, without interference from London or Dublin. That's as true now as it was in 1971.

Well yeah, but on the same pretext in 400 years time the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank will be 'legal' just because they were taken by force...

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Well yeah, but on the same pretext in 400 years time the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank will be 'legal' just because they were taken by force...

Unfortunately, yes. Which is why it's so disappointing that the world doesn't want to do anything about them now.

That's largely down to the U.S....

It's gas that Spain objects to Gibraltar but has no problem with Ceuta, which is a very similar issue on the other side of the straits.

Well, exactly. Good point. They should give up that spot also.

This was a good thread until a couple of days ago.

Why, what's wrong with it now?

http://kassiesa.net/uefa/forum/view....0524141349.xml

Dont know if thats known here - but news to me!!! Jesus who is next? kosovo, greenland, isle of man?

Transylvania? Lolz...

Seriously, Flanders could be a bet in the next decade...

We were talking about Gibraltar on the previous page.

Kosovo is on the way to UEFA/FIFA recognition, and I think it will benefit from the precedent that Gibraltar has now set in regards objections from neighbouring associations of a political nature. But it needs the UN to recognise it, and its difficult to see that happening in the near future thanks to Russian objections. Greenland is looking for it, but I think they still lack the required infrastructure. I think the Isle of Man, like the Channel Islands, briefly flirted with the idea of application but never went for it properly.

If Belgium does separate into Wallonia and Flanders, I see no reason why both would not be recognised as nations by the UN, UEFA or FIFA.

As an autonomous constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark, doesn't Greenland share a status identical to that of the Faroe Islands?