FIFA float idea
FIFA have an….unusual suggestion in the ongoing who can play for what team saga. The Newsletter don’t like it one bit (no link at 2:20). Neither do the blogging fans. As ever however, the most thoughtful and interesting comment comes from Beano, who suggests that the compromise would actually create two sectarianised Irish teams. Presumably he is also being making himself look “small minded” according to the the Irish News editorial this morning.
The point being made is that the same criteria apply to those “whose nationality [singular] entitles them to play for more than one teamâ€. You seem to be determined to ignore this. Why is that?
WRONG!!!! Again, check the relevant excert of Circular 901 I repasted, dated 16 March 2004 and not the section Mike referred to dated 04 December 2003. However, i’m not so naive that you’ll actually accept this point. However, bearing in mind FIFA’s most recent communications on this matter, it would appear that FIFA did not intend Circular 901 to apply to those with dual nationality.
Do you understand the distinction between “football nationality†(i.e. the international team for whom a player is eligible under FIFA rules) and legal citizenship? Yes or no?
In this case that should read “International Teams“? Do you understand the difference between assuming a new nationality and theIrish Citizenship and Nationality Act 2004?
Dec -
———————–
Unfortunately you are omitting the relevant (and final)section of Circular 901:
Therefore, and having examined the facts of the matter at hand, on 16 March 2004, the FIFA Emergency Committee ruled as follows:
1. Any player who refers to the first sentence of Article 15, paragraph 1 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes to assume a new nationality shall only be eligible to play for the new national team if he fulfills one of the following conditions:
A) the player was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
B) his biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
C) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
D) He has lived continuously for at least two years on the territory of the relevant Association;
2. The decision outlined in point 1 above enters into force immediately and is final
Frankly you need to read Circular 901 more closely.
——————————
Oh for the love of God man, come on!!!
This is like pulling teeth!
The part you quote is NOT the relevant section.
I’m not talking about Gibson or anyone else ‘changing nationality’, or acquired a ‘new nationality’, and neither as far as I know is the IFA.
My point is, Circular 901 ALSO refers (while leading up to the decision on players acquiring a new nationality) to a RULING BY FIFA ON PLAYERS WHOSE NATIONALITY WOULD IN THEORY QUALIFY THEM TO PLAY FOR MORE THAN ONE TEAM.
I’m making the point that this ruling could well apply to Irish nationality as it does to British, Danish, American, etc.
Why or earth do you keep referring to the decision in Circular 901 on players obtaining a new nationality? Who is saying this is relevant?
If it helps you gain some mental clarity, forget Circular 901 completely. The point is the ruling made by the FIFA Executive Committee on 4 December 2003.
Willow
“Have you worked out the difference between “football nationality†and legal citizenship yet?”
Why don’t you explain once again why Irish citizens born in Ireland who want to play for the Republic of Ireland are not entitled to do so, under FIFA statutes?
Surely you wouldn’t claim that someone born in Derry has no link with RoI?
(He is, after all, entitled to Irish citizenship AS A RIGHT OF BIRTH.)
Or are you going to start talking about Brazilians in Qatar again?
Mike
“a RULING BY FIFA ON PLAYERS WHOSE NATIONALITY WOULD IN THEORY QUALIFY THEM TO PLAY FOR MORE THAN ONE TEAM.”
Singular nationality, like British. Irish only qualifies you for the Republic team. The Irish passport is just used to prove identity, the IFA must prove British eligibility for those players that do not have a British passport.
Mike,
“On 4 December 2003, the FIFA Executive Committee approved the above conditions in the special regulations governing eligibility to play for national teams (players theoretically eligible to play for several national teams on account of their nationality). As these cases are similar from a factual point of view, these conditions should also apply to the matter at hand.â€
This is the relevant point.”
This is not a relevant point to the situation at hand here and FIFA have made it clear.
Remember the ruling made by FIFA in March 2006 regarding Alex Bruce:
“In order for the player Bruce to be able to play for a representative team of the Republic of Ireland, he shall be required to hold a passport of the Republic of Ireland. This principle is clearly established in art. 15 par. 1 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes.”
Or what about the ruling made by FIFA in October 2006:
“The parent/grandparent rule, on the other hand, seeks to ensure that a player has a sufficient link to the association that he wishes to represent. Therefore, if the nationality of a player entitles him to represent more than one association, the player must show that he, his parents or his grandparents were born in the territory of the association that he wishes to represent or that he lived in the territory of this association for a least two years.
Similarly, a player who never played for his former association at international level but who later on obtains a new nationality, must also show that he has such a link to the country of the new association for which he wishes to play for that goes beyond just obtaining the passport (FIFA Circular Letter no. 901). This is the rule that is set out in art. 1 of annex 2 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players.
The parent/grandparent rule, therefore, is only relevant for a Northern Irish player who is seeking to play for another British association team. To play for the Republic of Ireland, the player must be a national of the Republic of Ireland and, if he previously played for a youth team of Northern Ireland, he must also obtain the approval of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee to carry out this change.”
Or how about the FIFA statement of October 2007:
“The current situation is such that, for the Irish Football Association, players can choose also to play for the representative teams of the Football Association of Ireland but the vice-versa is not possible.”
At no time have FIFA deviated from the “current position”. The IFA are asking them to do just that. That is the relevant point.
Dec
WRONG!!!! Again, check the relevant excert of Circular 901 I repasted, dated 16 March 2004 and not the section Mike referred to dated 04 December 2003.
But it’s not wrong, Dec. Just because it isn’t in that part of Circular 901 which you choose to quote doesn’t mean it’s not in the rules. I posted a link for you on another thread – you chose to ignore it, so you’ve only yourself to blame for your ignorance. See Mike’s latest if you don’t believe me.
However, bearing in mind FIFA’s most recent communications on this matter, it would appear that FIFA did not intend Circular 901 to apply to those with dual nationality.
Of course not, Dec, and I never said they did (I even reiterated the point in my last post!). In fact, I actually made an express distinction with dual nationality and someone “whose nationality entitles them to play for more than one teamâ€.
You seem to be tangling yourself up with this.
In this case that should read “International Teams�
No, Dec, because in football you’re only eligible for one team at a time. You see, “football nationality†is not the same as legal citizenship – surely you’re getting this now?
Do you understand the difference between assuming a new nationality and theIrish Citizenship and Nationality Act 2004?
Of course I do, Dec. It’s not me who’s confused: it’s you! (See above.)
Billy Pilgrim
Why don’t you explain once again why Irish citizens born in Ireland who want to play for the Republic of Ireland are not entitled to do so, under FIFA statutes?
They are entitled, Billy. As I’ve said all along.
Surely you wouldn’t claim that someone born in Derry has no link with RoI?
That would all depend on the person. I don’t claim to everyone in Derry. I’m not sure if I even no anyone in Derry. Some might say that’s a good thing.
Willow
“They are entitled, Billy. As I’ve said all along.”
So (let me see if I understand you correctly): you have no issue with anyone in NI declaring for RoI?
Also
“That would all depend on the person.”
Actually it doesn’t. Everyone born in Derry is entitled to Irish citizenship as a right of birth. (Though of course there are those in Derry who will politely decline the honour.)
Seems to me like a profound link, and it’s one that applies to everyone – it doesn’t “depend on the person”. And clearly it’s fundamentally different to Brazilians who, as far as I know, have no automatic right of birth to Qatari citizenship.
Because Quatar doesn’t have aggressive irredentist citzenship laws. They could of course decide to give a passport to every Brazilian citizen as of right, which would certainly not mean that FIFA should adjudge every Brazilian citizen to be elegible to play for Qatar.
That should have read “everyone born in Brazil”.
Billy Pilgrim
So (let me see if I understand you correctly): you have no issue with anyone in NI declaring for RoI?
I’d rather they didn’t. And I’d rather FIFA modified its rules to close the loophole.
Actually it doesn’t. Everyone born in Derry is entitled to Irish sic] citizenship as a right of birth. (Though of course there are those in Derry who will politely decline the honour.)
Yes, but that doesn’t mean they all have the relevant connections as set out in 901 (or wherever). Also, someone born in Derry to non-ROI-citizen parents isn’t entitled to ROI citizenship.
Chekov
“Because Quatar doesn’t have aggressive irredentist citzenship laws.”
Riiiiggghhht.
Let me know when FIFA gets back to you on that one. I’d be interested to hear their verdict. Sounds like you have a water-tight case………
I stated a fact that has nothing to do with FIFA. Qatar does not have aggressive irredentist citizenship laws entitling those outside its territory and with no connection to its territory, automatically to a Qatari passport. The ROI does.
If Qatar opened up a passport office in Brasilia and began giving every Brazilian who applied for one a passport then FIFA would have to deal with that situation. As they don’t there is no necessity.
Willow
“I’d rather they didn’t. And I’d rather FIFA modified its rules to close the loophole.”
I understand that you’d rather they didn’t, but it’s a large leap from there to advocating the closure of that option altogether. Your position is highly illiberal. Would you not agree that Ireland’s history of violence and our unique peace process – underpinned by the GFA – merits a more liberal approach?
“Yes, but that doesn’t mean they all have the relevant connections as set out in 901 (or wherever).”
I’m confused. Are you basing your argument on 901 or not? You seem to be jumping around a lot in terms of the basis of your argument.
“Also, someone born in Derry to non-ROI-citizen parents isn’t entitled to ROI citizenship.”
Fair enough. But the other 99.9% ARE entitled, as a right of birth. They are born as full citizens of the Republic. Why would you advocate that FIFA change its rule to prevent them from representing one of the countries they are, by birth, entitled to represent?
Lastly: would you accept that, realistically, there isn’t a hope in hell of FIFA actually doing what you advocate?
Chekov
Oh, I understand you perfectly. As I say, let me know what FIFA’s verdict is when you write to them with this fresh information.
Billy Pilgrim
I understand that you’d rather they didn’t, but it’s a large leap from there to advocating the closure of that option altogether. Your position is highly illiberal. Would you not agree that Ireland’s history of violence and our unique peace process – underpinned by the GFA – merits a more liberal approach?
It is not “illiberal†to advocate fairness.
I’m confused. Are you basing your argument on 901 or not? You seem to be jumping around a lot in terms of the basis of your argument.
Let me clear up your confusion, Billy. I’m arguing that the 901 criteria should be used to close the loophole: I’m not arguing that 901 (as presently drafted) applies.
Why would you advocate that FIFA change its rule to prevent them from representing one of the countries they are, by birth, entitled to represent?
To provide for fairness. It is not fair that one FIFA member (by virtue of expansionist citizenship laws) is entitled to players, not only from its own country, but also from a neighbouring country.
Lastly: would you accept that, realistically, there isn’t a hope in hell of FIFA actually doing what you advocate?
No. I accept that, on balance, it is unlikely. But I don’t go so far as to say there is “no hope in hellâ€: the issue is still alive.
WILLOWFIELD
RE:Bosman, UEFA breached the law in this and as a result so did all the clubs who were members of UEFA hence why they all had to change their practices. As I have said, it matters not whether the area of law being breached is to do with employment or any other branch of law, what matters is that a certain area of law is being breached and the international sporting association is bound to change it’s rules in order to fall in line with the law. If FIFA’s eleigibility rules breach domestic laws in either the UK or Eire then a case can be brought against that organisation in either jurisdiction.
“The ROI citizenship laws have not been incorporated into British law. How absurd would that be? ”
Where did I suggest the ROI’s citizenship laws were incorporated into UK law?
“FIFA is not bound to follow the law of either jurisdiction. For example, FIFA is not bound to ban smoking in public places just because the UK and ROI did.”
FIFA is bound to follow the laws of both juridictions, it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Are you saying FIFA can allow people to smoke in their premises in the UK or Eire despite the fact that there is a ban? Exactly where do you suppose FIFA gained this alleged immunity from the domestic law on any country it operates in?
“The ROI’s citizenship laws are relevant because FIFA has deemed that eligibility for international football is dependent on citizenship. But that does not mean that FIFA is required to ensure that citizenship alone is the only eligibility criterion.”
True, citizenship does not have to be the only criterion relevant for determing eligiblity, I never suggested otherwise. However, what I did sugeest was that if FIFA’s eligibility rules breach doestic or EU law then they would open themselves up to legal challenges and would have to ammend said rules in order to comply with the law.
Willow
“Also, someone born in Derry to non-ROI-citizen parents isn’t entitled to ROI citizenship.”
Wrong. See below.* Note anyone born in NI has a Constitutional Right to citizenship which is even better than a legal right! I would take it that FIFA noted that this right was introduced in 1999 – long before Darren Gibson would have shown his potential as a footballer and entirely in keeping with the spirit of FIFA’s own rules and regulations.
—-
*What the Constitution (ROI) says:
There are two articles of the Constitution which deal with citizenship. Article 2 which became part of the Constitution on 2 December 1999 as a result of the Good Friday agreement (the Northern Ireland peace agreement or the Belfast Agreement) states:
“It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation.
That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.â€
The effect of this is that every person born on the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen and, as this is a constitutional right, it cannot be changed by law. Before 2 December 1999, everyone born in Ireland did have the right to be an Irish citizen but the right arose from legislation and not from the Constitution.
—–
So a written constitution is now not law! Dear lord almighty!
The relevance of the rest is lost on me as “the Irish nation” does not have a representative football team.
Kensei -
I think this is what the whole debate hinges on. Does Irish citizenship in theory make a player eligible to play for NI?
If so then the 2003 ruling applies. Irish citizenship plus birth in NI etc. FIFA accept proof of these as eligibility to play for in, as I see it.
George -
It remains to be seen whether FIFA have actually fully considered the impact of their 2003 ruling in relation to NI and the RoI. They’ve not ruled specifically on this as far as I can see.
Also, FIFA’s ‘proposal’ does ‘deviate’ in a major way from the situation you describe – they propose allowing players who have no RoI citizenship to play for the RoI, and players with no UK citizenship and no connection to NI to play for NI.
DEV
RE:Bosman, UEFA breached the law in this and as a result so did all the clubs who were members of UEFA hence why they all had to change their practices.
No. The employer (the club employing Bosman) was held to have broken EC law. The consequence of this was that all clubs within the EU, therefore, were also in breach of the same law; and therefore, it was necessary for UEFA and/or FIFA to change their laws in order to avoid a situation whereby clubs within the EU had to break UEFA/FIFA rules in order to comply with the laws of their own states.
As I have said, it matters not whether the area of law being breached is to do with employment or any other branch of law, what matters is that a certain area of law is being breached and the international sporting association is bound to change it’s [sic] rules in order to fall in line with the law. If FIFA’s eleigibility rules breach domestic laws in either the UK or Eire then a case can be brought against that organisation in either jurisdiction.
But FIFA’s eligibility rules don’t breach domestic laws in either the UK or Eire.
Where did I suggest the ROI’s citizenship laws were incorporated into UK law?
By saying – in a discussion about the ROI citizenship provisions of the GFA – that the GFA had been “incorporated into UK lawâ€. The rest of the GFA is entirely irrelevant so the only way this statement could have been relevant was if you believed ROI citizenship laws had been incorporated into UK law. If this is not what you believe, then your statement was irrelevant.
FIFA is bound to follow the laws of both juridictions, it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
It’s not. And it’s not ridiculous to suggest otherwise. On the contrary, it’s ridiculous to make the suggestion: FIFA has nearly 200 members – the laws of each of those member states are different and conflicting – how on earth could FIFA abide by the conflicting laws of hundreds of different states?
Are you saying FIFA can allow people to smoke in their premises in the UK or Eire despite the fact that there is a ban?
No. I’m saying that FIFA is not bound to ban people from smoking in enclosed spaces in football stadiums throughout the world just because there is such a ban in the UK and Eire.
Exactly where do you suppose FIFA gained this alleged immunity from the domestic law on any country it operates in?
I don’t suppose that.
True, citizenship does not have to be the only criterion relevant for determing eligiblity, I never suggested otherwise.
There you go, then. What are you going on about?
However, what I did sugeest was that if FIFA’s eligibility rules breach doestic or EU law then they would open themselves up to legal challenges and would have to ammend said rules in order to comply with the law.
They don’t breach domestic or EC law. Also, it’s not the case that FIFA would be compelled to amend its rules just because they were in breach of the law in one member state. FIFA could choose to amend its laws or it could choose to maintain its laws. In the latter scenario it would then be up to the relevant FIFA member to decide whether to comply with its own domestic law and therefore disqualify itself from FIFA competitions; or to breach its own domestic law and compete.
To take (for illustrative purposes) an extreme example, if the Irish Republic, or any other state, passed a law banning blacks from playing competitive sport, yet FIFA’s rules included anti-racist provisions, FIFA would not be compelled to repeal those provisions as a result of the domestic law in the Irish Republic.
JANEYMAC
You’re a few years out of date. The constitution was changed so that, as well as being born in the island of Ireland, you have to have at least one ROI-citizen parent to be an ROI citizen.
Willow
“It is not “illiberal†to advocate fairness.”
Sorry Willow, but simply labelling your desired outcome as “fairness” does not make it so. This is very weak stuff. You haven’t even made an argument.
“Let me clear up your confusion, Billy. I’m arguing that the 901 criteria should be used to close the loophole: I’m not arguing that 901 (as presently drafted) applies.”
Sorry. I’m even more confused now. Are you calling for a new draft of 901 or what?
“It is not fair that one FIFA member (by virtue of expansionist citizenship laws) is entitled to players, not only from its own country, but also from a neighbouring country.”
But these “expansionist citizenship laws” are of significance only insofar as people in NI are interested in taking them up. Your problem is that an awful lot of people in NI would be keen to take up a choice that you would rather they didn’t. For that reason, you argue that they should be denied that choice – rather an existential choice for many people, as opposed to being, for you, merely a matter of what you would rather. And yes, that is a highly illiberal position.
“No. I accept that, on balance, it is unlikely. But I don’t go so far as to say there is “no hope in hellâ€: the issue is still alive.”
Fair enough. But I wonder are you concerned at all of the strategic and PR costs the IFA are incurring in pursuing what you accept is an “unlikely” outcome?
How certain would failure have to be before you’d consider it politic to accept the inevitable and move on?
Willow / Janeymac
“The constitution was changed so that, as well as being born in the island of Ireland, you have to have at least one ROI-citizen parent to be an ROI citizen.”
Just to clarify – when Willow says “RoI citizen”, this applies to anyone born on the island of Ireland. (It was the pregnant Nigerians that Gruppenführer McDowell was after, not the good citizens of the wee six.)
Chekov
“So a written constitution is now not law! Dear lord almighty!”
Where does it say that?
My understanding is that this can only be changed by a referendum (Constitutional) and not by parliament.
“The relevance of the rest is lost on me as “the Irish nation†does not have a representative football team.”
What a surprise that you think there is no such thing as an “Irish nation” LOL.
Mike
“I think this is what the whole debate hinges on. Does Irish citizenship in theory make a player eligible to play for NI?
If so then the 2003 ruling applies. Irish citizenship plus birth in NI etc. FIFA accept proof of these as eligibility to play for in, as I see it.
”
It doesn’t. I highlighted this earlier:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5093924.stm
“They’re going to accept that players from Northern Ireland can hold either a British or an Irish passport and travel on these as long as the Irish Football Association certifies the eligibility of the players involved.”
Irish nationality does not qualify them. British nationality does.
Chekov
What’s it like in 1954?
Janeymac, you said that the citizenship law had “greater than legal force” and that it was not now contained in “legislation”. Whether we know what you mean or not it is intensely annoying when you come out with such inaccurate mumbo-jumbo.
Mike,
FIFA are the ones who decide on the impact of the 2003 ruling and they have ruled on it.
An inquiry was made about Alex Bruce and they ruled on it in March 2006. They repeated the position in October 2006 and once again in October 2007.
Don’t forget that the IFA did not ask for a ruling on Gibson, they asked for a clarification on the position of players. They have been given it.
The reply the IFA received was that things are as per Bruce but that FIFA was willing to propose an “amicable solution” that, as you rightly point out, does deviate from the statutes.
A bit like the deal between the four home associations, which includes the IFA, deviates from the statutes.
The thing is, just like with that deal between the FA, SFA, WFA and IFA, all parties have to agree to the “amicable solution”.
That deal would never have been imposed on the IFA if they didn’t agree to it.
The same situation applies here. If the IFA refuse the “amicable solution”, then we just go back to the rigid application of Article 15.
As this is FIFA of course they can change their minds again and rule in a different way but I can’t see a situation where FIFA will now deviate from its own statutes simply to benefit the IFA and without the consent of the FAI.
Obviously, that is what the IFA must hope for.
Young Gibson is happy with the decision.
http://www.derryjournal.com/journal-sport/39Gibby39-delighted-with-FIFA39s-surprise.3461378.jp
“I would say the decision is a good thing for young footballers in N. Ireland. In my experience, many players would prefer to play for the Republic so it’s definitely a good thing for the FAI.”
Chekov
“Janeymac, you said that the citizenship law had “greater than legal force†and that it was not now contained in “legislationâ€. Whether we know what you mean or not it is intensely annoying when you come out with such inaccurate mumbo-jumbo.”
Well, I’m very sorry that I upset you with such an “inaccurate mumbo-jumbo” post that you felt compelled to respond even though you understood what I meant.
Chill a bit!
I don’t feel inclined to “chill” when identity fetishists are attempting to destroy my team with the separate but equal drivel.
If it helps you gain some mental clarity, forget Circular 901 completely. The point is the ruling made by the FIFA Executive Committee on 4 December 2003.
That ruling is referred to in Circular 901 and consequently superseded by the section I quoted, dated 16 March 2004. But don’t take my word for it, take FIFA’s repeated rejection of the IFA’s case as an indicator of whose interpretation is correct.
I don’t feel inclined to “chill†when identity fetishists are attempting to destroy my team with the separate but equal drivel.
That being the case, why do you want them on your team?
Players are not setting the agenda on this issue as you well know.
Billy Pilgrim
Sorry Willow, but simply labelling your desired outcome as “fairness†does not make it so.
I don’t claim that it does.
This is very weak stuff. You haven’t even made an argument.
I have. Over several days and weeks. If you haven’t been following the thread, that’s your fault, not mine.
Sorry. I’m even more confused now. Are you calling for a new draft of 901 or what?
I couldn’t give a damn whether it’s a new draft of 901, a new circular, a new directive, a new statement, a letter, whatever. It’s not the form of the rules that matters, but the substance.
But these “expansionist citizenship laws†are of significance only insofar as people in NI are interested in taking them up.
Under the law, anyone born in NI is “not presumed not to be†a Southern citizen, even if they haven’t “taken it up†(by which I presume you mean obtain a passport). But the point is academic. The citizenship laws enable the ROI to pick players from another country as well as its own players. That is unfair, whether no players or 100,000 players happen to wish to play for the Republic.
Your problem is that an awful lot of people in NI would be keen to take up a choice that you would rather they didn’t.
Even if not a single person was keen to play for the Republic, the situation in principle would still be unfair.
For that reason, you argue that they should be denied that choice
No. The reason is because in principle it is unfair. I would still wish for the rules to change even if not a single person wished to play for the Republic.
And yes, that is a highly illiberal position.
It is not “illiberal†to seek fairness.
Fair enough. But I wonder are you concerned at all of the strategic and PR costs the IFA are incurring in pursuing what you accept is an “unlikely†outcome?
I’m not concerned because they are doing the right thing, both nobly in terms of pursuing fairness, and also practically in terms of looking after their own interests. The sort of people getting angry about this are the sort not inclined to look favourably upon the IFA in any case (and who enjoy getting angry about these sorts of thing). The vast majority of people in NI I expect are positively uninterested in the affair.
How certain would failure have to be before you’d consider it politic to accept the inevitable and move on?
It’s not possible to have degrees of certainty, so your question is unanswerable.
Dec
That ruling is referred to in Circular 901 and consequently superseded by the section I quoted, dated 16 March 2004. But don’t take my word for it, take FIFA’s repeated rejection of the IFA’s case as an indicator of whose interpretation is correct.
Dec, you STILL don’t understand.
FIFA is rejecting the IFA’s claim that the provisions dealing with a player “whose nationality entitles him to play for more than one team†apply in respect of NI/ROI. They are NOT saying that those provisions do not exist.
The provisions DO exist – otherwise there would be no rules dealing with eligibility for each of the home nations, for each of whom any UK citizen would eligible were it not for those provisions.
Willow
“I don’t claim that it does.”
Yes, by implication you do. You’re not going to start this oul’ shite again, are you?
“I couldn’t give a damn whether it’s a new draft of 901, a new circular, a new directive, a new statement, a letter, whatever.”
So yes then. You accept that under existing rules northerners are entitled to declare for the RoI. What you want is a NEW RULE closing down this option? Just clarifiying.
“Under the law, anyone born in NI is “not presumed not to be†a Southern citizen, even if they haven’t “taken it up†(by which I presume you mean obtain a passport).”
Yes but they do have the INALIABLE ENTITLEMENT as a right of birth. “Taking up” that entitlement could, I guess, mean anything from applying for a passport or driving licence to working or living across the border (and thereafter paying taxes, voting etc) or availing of Irish diplomatic representation when abroad. And yes, I’d suggest that making yourself available for selection to represent the state (whether in sport or anything else) would count as a positive act of “taking up” the citizenship which is your inaliable right.
“But the point is academic. The citizenship laws enable the ROI to pick players from another country as well as its own players. That is unfair…”
Why is it unfair? Inconvenient for the IFA, I grant you, but unfair?
Who are you to put the ne plus ultra on the aspirations of an Irish citizen who happens to be a good footballer? Who are the IFA?
“Even if not a single person was keen to play for the Republic, the situation in principle would still be unfair.”
Again, the fact that you say it doesn’t make it so.
“The reason is because in principle it is unfair.”
See above.
“I would still wish for the rules to change even if not a single person wished to play for the Republic.”
And as I say: highly illiberal.
“It is not “illiberal†to seek fairness.”
No. But what you are seeking is highly illiberal and has little to do with fairness. It’s about locking in to the logic of partition those who have no interest in buying into the logic of partition.
“I’m not concerned because they are doing the right thing, both nobly in terms of pursuing fairness, and also practically in terms of looking after their own interests.”
We’ll just have to disagree on this one. It appears to be a matter of faith.
“It’s not possible to have degrees of certainty, so your question is unanswerable.”
Ah, so you ARE at this ould shite again. All right: how close to certainty would you have to be?
Players are not setting the agenda on this issue as you well know
But players are central to the issue. So I ask again, if they want to play for the ROI, and you are so contemptous of the team and their fans, why on earth would you want players, who really want to play for the Republic, to play for Northern Ireland?
Billy Pilgrim
Yes, by implication you do.
No, I don’t: I’ve explained why it is unfair.
You accept that under existing rules northerners are entitled to declare for the RoI. What you want is a NEW RULE closing down this option?
FFS. For the 37th time … YES.
Yes but they do have the INALIABLE ENTITLEMENT as a right of birth.
That’s what I said.
Why is it unfair?
Because fairness would suggest that each FIFA member may only be represented by its own players and not also those of a fellow FIFA member. Because it is not fair that one FIFA member may obtain the players of a neighbouring FIFA member in addition to its own players, and thereby weaken that neighbouring FIFA member, by virtue of an irredentist citizenship law passed by the former FIFA member’s state.
Who are you to put the ne plus ultra on the aspirations of an Irish citizen who happens to be a good footballer?
It is not within my power to do so and I have never claimed that it is.
Who are the IFA?
The IFA is the governing body for football in Northern Ireland and is a member of FIFA.
No. But what you are seeking is highly illiberal and has little to do with fairness.
It has everything to do with fairness.
It’s about locking in to the logic of partition those who have no interest in buying into the logic of partition.
Football is partitioned in Ireland, so “the logic of partition†applies.
Ah, so you ARE at this ould shite again. All right: how close to certainty would you have to be?
When the matter is settled, it is settled. When it is settled I will accept it. The matter is not yet settled.
Will you accept the matter as settled if the settlement is not to your liking?
I do not want players who do not want to play for Northern Ireland to play for Northern Ireland. Nobody is forced to pull on an international shirt.
I am not contemptuous of the Republic of Ireland team or their fans. I certainly am contemptuous of their predatory governing association and the nationalist doctrinaires who attempt to justify the segregation of the two Irish teams by their warped understanding of the GFA and their prescriptive notions of Irishness.
I do not want to see a situation where segregationist ideas are accepted and influence young players. It is not footballers who are driving this agenda, it is not even football fans.
Well dont keep suspense who is driving the agenda then
“I do not want players who do not want to play for Northern Ireland to play for Northern Ireland. Nobody is forced to pull on an international shirt”
Bang on the money Chekov.
I would sincerely love the weasel gibson to break both his legs in his next match.
I follow the Republic.
Can we conclude from Dec‘s failure to respond on the issue of 901, etc., that he now understands that the 901 criteria apply to players “whose nationality entitles them to play for more than one country”?
He’s just a bit embarrassed about being proved wrong?
Willow
“FFS. For the 37th time … YES.”
Okay, just checking.
“Because fairness would suggest that each FIFA member may only be represented by its own players and not also those of a fellow FIFA member.”
How would a young fella from south Armagh with absolutely no interest in playing for NI be one of the IFA’s “own players”?
“Because it is not fair that one FIFA member may obtain the players of a neighbouring FIFA member in addition to its own players,”
Again, my notional south Armagh player does not regard himself as being in any shape or form one of the IFA’s players. Why should the IFA get to define what he is? Why shouldn’t that choice be his?
“….and thereby weaken that neighbouring FIFA member…”
Again, my notional south Armagh player doesn’t care about the IFA. He doesn’t give a damn if the IFA is weakened. As far as he’s concerned, it’s nothing to do with him. He just wants to play for what he regards as his country (or at least the nearest approximation to it). The IFA is not his problem. Why should the IFA get to crowbar its way in between him and the international future his heart is set on?
“…by virtue of an irredentist citizenship law passed by the former FIFA member’s state.”
And there it is.
“It is not within my power to do so and I have never claimed that it is.”
You are supporting a change to FIFA regulations. You are a fellow-traveller to those who are, at FIFA level, trying to put the ne plus ultra on the international aspirations of Irish citizens. At least be honest about it.
“Football is partitioned in Ireland, so “the logic of partition†applies.”
Actually, this is not the case, as you have admitted. Presently FIFA DOES allow northerners to play for RoI, so the logic of partition is a little fuzzier than you are comfortable with. The Darron Gibson case is proof that the logic of partition is breaking down within international football. You are attempting to put your finger in the dyke – something which would deny northerners a right that they currently enjoy. You are attempting to seal the border. This is a highly illiberal throwback to the bad old days.
“When it is settled I will accept it.”
And when it is settled, and FIFA inevitably takes the path of least resistance and sides with the FAI, will you, even for a moment, lament the goodwill towards the IFA that has been squandered by this crusade?
“Will you accept the matter as settled if the settlement is not to your liking?”
My personal opinion is of no significance whatsoever. However, according to Darron Gibson’s uncle, there’s a queue of footballers waiting to take FIFA to court if they change their rules on this. So whether I accept it is irrelevant – people with lawyers and footballers’ wages will not accept it.
Chekov
“I do not want players who do not want to play for Northern Ireland to play for Northern Ireland. Nobody is forced to pull on an international shirt.”
Yes, but you DO want to prevent some players from playing for what they regard as their country. You DO want to tell them: “It’s Windsor or nothing”.
Trouble is, FIFA doesn’t agree with you. Frankly, I have no sympathy.
“I certainly am contemptuous of their predatory governing association…”
In fairness, the FAI are only leaving a door open for those who want to come in. What drives you crazy is that apparently there are those who DO want to go in.
You scream: “But, look, we have a BORDER and everything!”
Yet strangely, some people aren’t wildly impressed by your little border. Indeed some people don’t even define their nationality in accordance with your cherished little border. I know it drives you crazy, but there it is. And worse, FIFA is happy to let those people who drive you crazy, make up their own minds.
But you cry: “NO!!!! WE must be the ones who make up their minds for them!!! It’s NOT FAIR!!!!”
I almost feel sorry for you!
“…and the nationalist doctrinaires who attempt to justify the segregation of the two Irish teams by their warped understanding of the GFA and their prescriptive notions of Irishness.”
In fairness, most nationalists want there to be ONE Irish team only. It’s the GAWA lads who are most stridently opposed to such an idea. It is they who want Irish football segregated into north and south – yet they also think they are entitled to the loyalty of those northerners who are strongly against this north/south segregation in the first place!
They aren’t.
Chopper Harris
That’s a disgusting remark. I hope one of the Mods will remove it – far less hateful comments have been removed in the past.
“Can we conclude from Dec‘s failure to respond on the issue of 901, etc., that he now understands that the 901 criteria apply to players “whose nationality entitles them to play for more than one countryâ€?!”
Once again: this is a single nationality, and does not apply to dual citizenship. Like British. But unlike Irish.
‘In fairness, most nationalists want there to be ONE Irish team only. It’s the GAWA lads who are most stridently opposed to such an idea. It is they who want Irish football segregated into north and south – yet they also think they are entitled to the loyalty of those northerners who are strongly against this north/south segregation in the first place!’
Superbly put and the plain, simple truth, Billy P-Amen.
BILLY PILGRIM
How would a young fella from south Armagh with absolutely no interest in playing for NI be one of the IFA’s “own players�
South Armagh’s in NI, Billy.
Again, my notional south Armagh player does not regard himself as being in any shape or form one of the IFA’s players. Why should the IFA get to define what he is? Why shouldn’t that choice be his?
South Armagh’s in NI, Billy. The IFA is the governing body for football in NI.
Again, my notional south Armagh player doesn’t care about the IFA. He doesn’t give a damn if the IFA is weakened. As far as he’s concerned, it’s nothing to do with him. He just wants to play for what he regards as his country (or at least the nearest approximation to it). The IFA is not his problem. Why should the IFA get to crowbar its way in between him and the international future his heart is set on?
An individual south Armagh player’s political opinions are of secondary importance to the fairness of FIFA’s rules and the integrity of FIFA’s members. If the south Armagh has no connection to the South then he shouldn’t be eligible.
You are supporting a change to FIFA regulations.
Supporting a change does not mean that I have the power to make a change.
“Football is partitioned in Ireland, so “the logic of partition†applies.â€
Actually, this is not the case, as you have admitted.
It is the case: there are two football jurisdictions in Ireland.
Presently FIFA DOES allow northerners to play for RoI, so the logic of partition is a little fuzzier than you are comfortable with. The Darron Gibson case is proof that the logic of partition is breaking down within international football. You are attempting to put your finger in the dyke – something which would deny northerners a right that they currently enjoy. You are attempting to seal the border. This is a highly illiberal throwback to the bad old days.
For over 50 years there has been agreement between the IFA and the FAI not to select players from the other jurisdiction, regardless of the detail of FIFA rules. The FAI is reneging on that. FIFA should rule to reassert the status quo, to ensure fairness and to protect the integrity of one of its member associations.
And when it is settled, and FIFA inevitably takes the path of least resistance and sides with the FAI, will you, even for a moment, lament the goodwill towards the IFA that has been squandered by this crusade?
No. The IFA has been doing the right thing and the FAI has been doing the wrong thing. Little “goodwill” has been squandered.
My personal opinion is of no significance whatsoever.
Yet mine is? I’m flattered.
However, according to Darron Gibson’s uncle, there’s a queue of footballers waiting to take FIFA to court if they change their rules on this.
LOL! Funny how Gibson’s uncle – like everyone else who casually mentions “legal action” – wasn’t able to state either the grounds for any such action, or to whom the legal action would be brought!
KENSEI
Once again: this is a single nationality, and does not apply to dual citizenship. Like British. But unlike Irish.
Yeah, we know that, but Dec doesn’t.
Willow
“LOL! Funny how Gibson’s uncle – like everyone else who casually mentions “legal action†– wasn’t able to state either the grounds for any such action, or to whom the legal action would be brought!”
Grounds – equality – all Irish children in the eyes of the Irish Constitution are equal and deserve equal opportunities. Gibson could claim he is being discriminated by the FAI (an organisation heavily funded by Irish Gov) because of his place of birth. He has already made the cut for Man Utd Academy, unlike all of his ROI born team mates!
There is an Irish Equality Tribunal to start with, but I’m sure it could get to the Irish courts fairly quickly.
As an aside, I wonder could Gibson take a case of bullying against the IFA – telling Gibson he would not be picked again for NI if he went for a Man Utd trial?
Not being able to play for the ROI football team doesn’t make anyone any less “equal before the law” than anyone else in any meaningful sense!
If someone was foolish enough to take the FAI to court for not picking a NI player, the FAI would have a rather straightforward defence: abiding by FIFA rules in respect of eligibility.
In any case, equality laws in ROI only outlaw discrimination on grounds of: gender; marital status; family status; age; disability; race;
sexual orientation; religious belief; and
membership of the Traveller Community.