Maybe FIFA could enflame the tensions between India and Pakistan too,
and vapourise us all in a nuclear holocaust, afterall thats what it's for
Using precedents wont anyone born in Soviet Union (or whose parent grandparents were born in Soviet Union) be eligible for all Soviet teams (or just Russia?)Originally Posted by Blanchflower
The problem we are now getting is people with grandparent born post partition, but I'd have thought they have another 50 years
I see David O'Leary's nephew is now playing for Scotland at underage. He plays for Kilmarnock.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
.
Where does FIFA say anything about the jurisdictions of a federation member being more important in Article 15 ?
Where did you get that statement from?
Art 15
"Any person holding the nationality of a country is eligible to
the representative teams of the Association of that country."
And as pointed out I am not talking about political views I am talking about constitutional rights which are infinitly stronger when they harmonize with FIFA's existing statutes.
Part of the constitutional right is automatic citizenship, which is recognised by Article 15. So obviously the full constitutional rights that allow anybody born on the Island full unconditional citizenship is the context for my reference and it mates perfectly with FIFA statutes..No-one's saying that those "full constitutional rights" should be affected in any way.
Carefull now.Nonsense. NI players are eligible for the South simply because of the South's citizenship laws. If you're trying to suggest that FIFA drew up its statutes in order to fall into line with the citizenship laws of one individual member, I think you're off your rocker.
NI born are entitled to declare for the Republic because FIFA´s statutes allow them to do so. FIFA statutes recognise the full unconditional citizenship that the Republic grant to all Island born as being fully compliant with FIFA law and the spirit of the Law.
Do you think that a law is just a jumble of letters which appear to fit and look nice?
The spirit of the Annex criteria is make sure that new citizens have proper ties to their new nation.
Why do you think that was brought in? because the spirit of what existed before was being violated not the rules themselves.
"Ireland" may be the name of a country (as well as an island) but it is NOT the name of an International Association Football team, so your argument doesn't stand up. Nor does your point about e.g the Republic of France or Kingdom of Denmark, since there is only one team called "France" or "Denmark"I have called 'us' Ireland. Why? Simple. That's the name of the country. If you are going to call it Republic of Ireland then let's have Republic of France, Federal Republic of Germany, etc. in every post. Northern Ireland are playing Denmark on Saturday? No they're not. They're playing the Kingdom of Denmark. Please use the coutry's proper name in all posts. Spain the following wednesday. Please don't insult it with anything less than 'Kingdom of Spain'.
If NI was an independent state - two Koreas or two Congos or what Vietnam, Germany etc used to be - then I'd concede that proper titles should be used to avoid confusion. But what you have is one country called Ireland and one - wrongly imo fwiw - a region of Britain (or the United Kingdom of etc. etc.)
There are two international football teams in Ireland and have been since 1923(?). For a period, the newer of these (i.e. that of the FAIFS) attempted to claim the name "Ireland", which the IFA had been using for their team since 1880.
To be honest, it didn't matter a great deal in the early years, until both teams began to express an interest in playing in the World Cup. Obviously, as far as FIFA were concerned, it would have been silly to have two teams both calling themselves "Ireland", so in 1950(?) they issued an instruction that for World Cup matches (and later for European Nations games) the FAI team must be called "Republic of Ireland" and the IFA team "Northern Ireland". This is the official designation to be used e.g. on programmes and scoreboards etc.
(Interestingly, however, the IFA was still allowed to use the name "Ireland" for non-WC or Euro games, e.g. for British Championship games, a practice they followed until around 1970)
Of course, it can hardly be objectionable should fans of either team use the term "Ireland" in everyday circumstances. However, people who wilfully use it wrongly, presumably in order to prove some sort of petty point, merely expose their prejudice - especially since in written form, "ROI" and "NI" are by far the easiest to type (as well as being correct)
http://bp3.blogger.com/_BIS_R7_5YVU/...eland+Away.jpg
http://www.fifa.com/associations/ass...untryInfo.html
Last edited by EalingGreen; 12/11/2007 at 3:54 PM.
Don't know. Who said they did?
What statement?
Of course it "mates perfectly" with FIFA statutes - I've already said that NI players are eligible for the SOuth. I'm arguing for a CHANGE to the statutes!
Yes, I know.
Yes, I know. I've said that several times and have been saying it for weeks.
No. Do you?
Indeed. Hence the rules needed to be changed. Same as now - the South's citizenship laws being extra-territorial in nature create a disadvantage for one of FIFA's members, and potentially a dangerous precedent elsewhere.
Last edited by Blanchflower; 12/11/2007 at 4:00 PM.
Why do they need to be changed? So the IFA can prevent people from playing football for what they consider to be their national team to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in some way? I don't think the South's citzenship laws are the problem here.
Tbh I find it hard to feel too sorry for the IFA now that they are worried that they are going to lose some players since they have for a long time promoted a team that has only represented one part of the political divide in Northern Ireland. Yes things have improved recently but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North. What right now, therefore do the IFA have to complain if a few of those same Nationalists want to play for a team that they feel more so represents them as Irish people.
Last edited by youngirish; 12/11/2007 at 5:11 PM.
[QUOTE=Blanchflower;812921]Don't know. Who said they did?
What statement?
This statement
This statement had nothing of relevance to my post or anything I wrote and nothing of relevance to the FIFA statute I was talking about. It is constructed like a statement, a declaration of fact. The use of the word actual confers statement value.The actual jurisdictions of each FIFA member is more important than the political views of individual people within those jurisdictions
I was strictly referring to a highly relevant constitutional right not a belief.
Go back and read what you wrote in reply and the context of your reply instead of engaging with a silly "what statement? " reply
So that one FIFA member no longer has all the players from another FIFA member to choose from as well as its own players.[/quote]
Clearly they are, for they are the reason that the South is able to have all NI players as well as its own.
I think that's a very unfair statement given recent developments.
Are you suggesting there should be religious quotas in the NI team?
Are you suggesting that NI managers discriminate against RC players when picking their teams? This is an outrageous insinuation.
It's a statement of the obvious. Which do you think FIFA is more concerned about: the integrity of its member organisations, or the individual political beliefs of individual players?
If you want to be taken serious you make a statement of the obvious where it is obviously relevant.It's a statement of the obvious. Which do you think FIFA is more concerned about: the integrity of its member organisations, or the individual political beliefs of individual players?
In its context it demonstrated that you couldn't tell the difference in importance between a political viewpoint and a right enshrined in the constitution which FIFA fully endorse because it is a constitutional right.
It also imo belittles that constitutional right to a mere political belief.
You wrote this:
As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles.
Thus implying that when FIFA drew up its eligibilty rules they did so having studied Southern Ireland's constitution.
Absolute nonsense. FIFA wrote its statutes for all its members and not for individual members' constitutions or citizenship laws; and not because they were so hurt at the thought of the poor oppressed Irishmen's land
The wishes of individual players, and the constitutions and laws of individual states are not FIFA's main concern. FIFA's main concern is to run international football on as fair a basis as they can and make rules on that basis.
Hence my comments.
Now I see the beginnings of why you got so hysterical.
No I seriously doubt that FIFA had Ireland in mind when constituting their eligibility criteriaThus implying that when FIFA drew up its eligibilty rules they did so having studied Southern Ireland's constitution.
Rather I mean't that the Irish citizenship situation in a divided country is something which fell effortlessly under the umbrella of FIFA Article 15.
Do you have any argument to present as to why FIFA should switch the whole bias of their eligibility critera from supporting the players to supporting the federation?
Have you got an argument other than fear which would support this?
Except that some of these countries (Bosnia excluded) put preconditions (learning the language) to citizenship - something the EU is seeking to address - for ethnic Russians gaining citizenship, so that would have been a pointless excersise. Mind you, as with Gather Round's hypothetical non-citizen Irish born footballer, I'm sure that a passport would be presented if a footballer was deemed good enough.
Oh spare us the mock indignation. F*ck off back to ourweeminds if you going to come all high and mighty about this subject....Are you suggesting that NI managers discriminate against RC players when picking their teams? This is an outrageous insinuation.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
So, on the one hand, you doubt that FIFA had Ireland in mind when constituting its eligibility criteria, but on the other hand: "As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles".
Right.
Only because of the South's extra-territorial laws - possibly unique in the world.
The eligibility criteria aren't about "supporting the players": they're about deciding who is and also who isn't eligible.
Sorry - don't know what point you're making.
Young Irish said "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. He is clearly alleging discrimination in the selection of teams.
Sorry - I do now after re-reading.
I think Ealing Green 'corrected' it adequately later down the thread. In FIFA/UEFA parlance there is the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, no Ireland and no Southern Ireland.
As you so eloquently put it earlier, I think you know the point I was making.
Honest! I am not a secret Tim nor a closet Sham - I really am a Seagull.
So, on the one hand, you doubt that FIFA had Ireland in mind when constituting its eligibility criteria, but on the other hand: "As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles".
Right.
Only because of the South's extra-territorial laws - possibly unique in the world.
The eligibility criteria aren't about "supporting the players": they're about deciding who is and also who isn't eligible.
Yeah sure, I really believed FIFA had a pre release copy of Dev´s constitution before they formulated Article 15. and based all their thinking on it. Probably the beneficial rewards from having sleeper Fenians all over the continent in all high places.
Eligibility criteria? I have said it´s weighed in the player´s favour, look at the terms for those players who qualify:, This is the reality,
they have a right to choose and a right to change, a right to reside elsewhere and play for the new country.
A right to change up to the age of 21.
It is the player who must submit a written request if he wants to declare for another country and his choice is free from any kind of obstacle being placed in his way by the association he is currently playing for.
FIFA will also interfere if a countries type of "citizenship" does not offer the player the full rights accorded to other citizens.
The UK Agreement is stifling in comparison.
Is there any sign of a support for the argument from you that FIFA should change their proven sound Statutes?
The following oddbits do not stand up to closer scrutiny.
"one FIFA member claims all the players of another FIFA member as its own by virtue of an extra-territorial citizenship law"
Fear that somehow this FIFA proposal be "potentially a dangerous precedent elsewhere".
So why did you say that "their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles"?
And? I know what the rules are ... My point is the rules should change.
I've no idea. I'm not a delegate to FIFA. I also doubt whether the IFA has done any lobbying. (By the way, the statutes are modified regularly.)
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks