The Darron Gibson Saga

eirebhoy

IFA winning Gibbo war
Man U star's Republic career in the balance
Sunday, October 14, 2007
By Jim Gracey

Northern Ireland and Republic football chiefs have been summoned to a top level FIFA showdown in Zurich tomorrow (Monday) for an expected ruling on the Darren Gibson tug-of-war between the two countries.

And indications are that the IFA will win their battle to have the Derry-born Manchester United starlet declared ineligible for the Republic who have already played him in a Euro 2008 qualifier.

That could open up another can of worms for the Republic and have serious repercussions for the young player whose senior international career would effectively be over before it really got off the ground.

Steve Staunton's side, who faced Germany in Dublin last night, could have points deducted for including Gibbo in their Group D 2-2 draw in Slovakia earlier this year.

They could even be booted out of the European Championship 2008 although their chances of qualifying for next summer's finals are slim anyway.

It would also be a bitter personal blow to 21-year-old rising star Gibson whose preference was always for the Republic and having achieved his dream, cannot now play for Northern Ireland, even if he wanted to.

His only hope, if the decision goes against him, would be for the ruling to cover future selections, allowing him to carry on representing the Republic.

IFA Chief Executive Howard Wells was at pains to point out last night:" There is nothing personal in all of this. It is about establishing a point of principle and preventing the Republic from selecting players from Northern Ireland who are not eligible for them.

"It is just unfortunate Darron Gibson has become the focus."

The wrangle has also become a political hot potato, hastening FIFA's determination to come to a resolution.

Republic chiefs and Government figures cited the right of Northern Ireland people, under the Good Friday Agreement, to consider themselves Irish citizens.

The IFA in turn recruited a top London QC and author of a book on the Agreement, Austin Morgan, who argued that the treaty was never intended to cut across sporting statutes.

Now it seems a FIFA ruling is imminent with IFA chiefs confident it will go in their favour. Either way, it will not bolster relations between the two associations.

An IFA insider hinted last night: "We expect the talks to put an end to the poaching wrangle. It has been going on for far too long.

"FIFA wanted us to get round a table and talk with the FAI but we rejected that and insisted on face-to-face talks with them, hence the summons to Zurich.

"We believe it is time to grasp the nettle otherwise we will continue to develop young players at under age level then run the risk of losing out when a special one emerges.

"It's not good enough and we want to put an end to it.

"Darron Gibson is an example of that. He played for Northern Ireland at Under 16 and Under 17 level yet was capped recently by the Republic against Slovakia.

"It's simply not good enough and it is time FIFA implemented the rules governing eligibility which are quite clear and which make young Gibson ineligible to play for the Republic.

"But this is not about young Gibson. The IFA's attitude is that the Gibson case is over but FIFA must act now to clarify the situation once and for all."

The Republic have already been told not to include players born in Northern Ireland until the wrangle has been sorted.

http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/sport/article3059026.ece

FIFA would be mad to back the IFA here.

kryogen

it seems slighlty mad that the lad could theoretically never be allowed to play international football again over something like this, why are the north pursueing this so much, he has already represented the republic, he wants to play for the republic, it seems petty to me. hes a 21 year old kid, the north dont stand to gain anything from this surely, its not like he can play for them now anyway, or would for that matter

Bounty Hunter

why are the IFA so confident?

does he not have an Irish Passport? did he not personally choose the republic over the North? is his decision not backed by the good friday agreeent ? and should it matter wether it was intended to cut across sporting statutes? intended or not it does.

Bounty Hunter

kryogen wrote: »

it seems slighlty mad that the lad could theoretically never be allowed to play international football again over something like this, why are the north pursueing this so much, he has already represented the republic, he wants to play for the republic, it seems petty to me. hes a 21 year old kid, the north dont stand to gain anything from this surely, its not like he can play for them now anyway, or would for that matter

why they pursue it and what they have to gain is that any future quality player born in the north under said circumstances will have to play for them if they want international football.

kryogen

yes that the obvious answer, i didnt think that needed to be said! anyway, as you've already stated the good friday agreement covers sports aswell as anything else! i cant see how fifa would rule in favour of the IFA here

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

PDN

Being a citizen of a country, and possessing a passport, does not guarantee eligibility to play for that country's national team. FIFA changed the rules in 2004 to prevent African countries from handing out passports to Brazilians who wanted to play for them.

The rules are that a player must either have lived in a country for at least two years, or have a parent or grandparent who was born there.

Therefore the Good Friday agreement has no more standing with FIFA than do any of Togo's rules for granting citizenship. If Gibson has a parent or grandparent born in the Republic, or if he lived here for 2 years, then he is eligible.

Think about this. If citizenship was the only criteria then English and Scotsmen could each play for one another's countries as they all hold UK citizenship.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Erin Go Brath

The IFA haven't a snowballs chance in hell of winning this. Very much misplaced confidence. Make no mistake, this is purely political. The IFA would love nothing more than to 'get one over' on their opposite number this side of the border. They are pursuing this because they are a bunch of foaming at the mouth Unionists who hate the Republic.

The GFA gives residents of the wee 6 a choice of Irish or British nationality. So if someone wants to play for the team in the Irish jurisdiction (ROI) over a team under British jurisdicton (NI) then thats their choice. Its a special arrangement to cater for people of the 6 Counties, and is not applicable in other countries eg England, Scotland etc.

PDN

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The IFA haven't a snowballs chance in hell of winning this. Very much misplaced confidence. Make no mistake, this is purely political. The IFA would love nothing more than to 'get one over' on their opposite number this side of the border. They are pursuing this because they are a bunch of foaming at the mouth Unionists who hate the Republic.

The GFA gives residents of the wee 6 a choice of Irish or British nationality. So if someone wants to play for the team in the Irish jurisdiction (ROI) over a team under British jurisdicton (NI) then thats their choice. Its a special arrangement to cater for people of the 6 Counties, and is not applicable in other countries eg England, Scotland etc.

I don't think this is political at all. Northern Ireland has a small population and as such has a very limited pool of players capable of competing in the international arena. Any young player knows that he has a better chance of playing in a World Cup with the Republic than with NI (well, assuming that the Republic appoint an international class manager). No player wants to be another George Best or Ryan Giggs, denied the opportunity to play on the greatest stage of all due to an accident of birth. Therefore the Republic can, at will, pick off every promising Northerner. The IFA want to lay down a marker to prevent this happening. That is very understandable.

I just hope Gibson isn't made an innocent victim of all this and that some kind of exception can be made in his case.

OhNoYouDidn't

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The IFA haven't a snowballs chance in hell of winning this. Very much misplaced confidence. Make no mistake, this is purely political. The IFA would love nothing more than to 'get one over' on their opposite number this side of the border. They are pursuing this because they are a bunch of foaming at the mouth Unionists who hate the Republic.

The GFA gives residents of the wee 6 a choice of Irish or British nationality. So if someone wants to play for the team in the Irish jurisdiction (ROI) over a team under British jurisdicton (NI) then thats their choice. Its a special arrangement to cater for people of the 6 Counties, and is not applicable in other countries eg England, Scotland etc.

Incorrect. They have a significant chance of winning. Like it or not, and leave the politics out of it, having a passport is no longer enough on its own to represent a country. He needs to have one of the other 3 criteria listed, birth in the juristiction, have lived there or 2 years or have a parent born there. He has none of these. Technically the IFA have a point and the GFA/dual citizenship argument is irrelevant.

The FAI say they have a letter from FIFA's legal team allowing Gibson to play and thats what the IFA are appealing.

There was a gentlemans agreement between the IFA and FAI not to poach each others players that Kerr 'broke'. The IFA waited until the first player of 'theirs' got a senior cap and took a case. Its petty and vindictive, but thats what they made it clear they would do.

PDN

Here's an interesting thought. If a player's grandfather was born in Ireland prior to Independence then he was born under British jurisdiction. Would this mean that England could poach such Irish players? Imagine if England had poached Roy Keane on such a basis. Wouldn't we want the FAI to take action to prevent such poaching? I don't think we would see such action by the FAI as petty or vindictive.

leninbenjamin

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The GFA gives residents of the wee 6 a choice of Irish or British nationality. So if someone wants to play for the team in the Irish jurisdiction (ROI) over a team under British jurisdicton (NI) then thats their choice. Its a special arrangement to cater for people of the 6 Counties, and is not applicable in other countries eg England, Scotland etc.

I guess the issue is whether the newer rulings overrule this "gentlemen's agreement" that was seemingly in place previously.

another factor i see that isn't really mentioned, Gibson wasn't just granted a passport like a naturalized immigrant, he qualified for one by virtue of his place of birth, so, as far as i can make out, in effect he was born an Citizen of the republic...which is very different from the instances this rule was meant to protect against. I think in reality it just shows how FIFA needs to come up with it's own ruling on our wee countries, or else there will be constant nitpicking by both sides in years to come...

PDN wrote: »

I just hope Gibson isn't made an innocent victim of all this and that some kind of exception can be made in his case.

I think that's the most important thing in this case, and that FIFA make some consideration for the players own wishes in this ruling.

OhNoYouDidn't

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I guess the issue is whether the newer rulings overrule this "gentlemen's agreement" that was seemingly in place previously.

another factor i see that isn't really mentioned, Gibson wasn't just granted a passport like a naturalized immigrant, he qualified for one by virtue of his place of birth, so, as far as i can make out, in effect he was born an Citizen of the republic...which is very different from the instances this rule was meant to protect against. I think in reality it just shows how FIFA needs to come up with it's own ruling on our wee countries, or else there will be constant nitpicking by both sides in years to come...



I think that's the most important thing in this case, and that FIFA make some consideration for the players own wishes in this ruling.

Lets repeat this for the slow learners. Citizenship alone does not allow you to play for a country. This debate will be very circular until that reality is acknowledged.

What you are asking is FIFA to make a ruling on the Irish national question, one they are most certainly not going to do. He is a citizen of one FIFA juristiction of which he has no blood line (by their rule) and he has never lived there and doesnt' hold the passport of the juriscticion he was born in. This complicates the issue, and much as I want to see him in the FAI colours for a number of reasons, both sporting and political, FIFA will have to be neutral on this.

The IFA know that he will never play for them, but they are trying to put a lid on guys of a nationalist persuasion bolting on them.

eirebhoy

PDN wrote: »

I don't think this is political at all. Northern Ireland has a small population and as such has a very limited pool of players capable of competing in the international arena. Any young player knows that he has a better chance of playing in a World Cup with the Republic than with NI (well, assuming that the Republic appoint an international class manager). No player wants to be another George Best or Ryan Giggs, denied the opportunity to play on the greatest stage of all due to an accident of birth. Therefore the Republic can, at will, pick off every promising Northerner. The IFA want to lay down a marker to prevent this happening. That is very understandable.

What about the tons of people up the north that regard themselves as Irish? There's only one Ireland in their eyes and they wouldn't dare line out for the north. Do these people have to move south to be fully regarded as Irish? There's a reason so many of them stayed up north during the troubles. Anything else is handing a quarter of this country over to England.

It's something FIFA shouldn't really get involved in. If a player born in the north wants to play for Ireland I doubt it's anything but for patriotic reasons. The IFA know this of course.

Keano

kryogen wrote: »

yes that the obvious answer, i didnt think that needed to be said! anyway, as you've already stated the good friday agreement covers sports aswell as anything else! i cant see how fifa would rule in favour of the IFA here

The good friday agreement has a lot to answer for!!

straws and clutching spring to mind!

He played for Ireland... IFA should just leave well alone and let the boy get on with his career

leninbenjamin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Lets repeat this for the slow learners. Citizenship alone does not allow you to play for a country. This debate will be very circular until that reality is acknowledged.

What you are asking is FIFA to make a ruling on the Irish national question, one they are most certainly not going to do. He is a citizen of one FIFA juristiction of which he has no blood line (by their rule) and has never lived there and doent hold the passport of the juriscticion he was born in. This complicates the issue, and much as I want to see him in the FAI colours for a number of reasons, both sporting and political, FIFA will have to be neutral on this.

but he qualified for that citizenship by virtue of his place of birth. i know citizenship alone doesn't mean squat in the eyes of FIFA, but one of the factors that can is the place of birth. and because people born in the North are entitled to both citizenship i think it confuddles the issue more than your suggesting. the original ruling was in regards naturalised citizens with no real connection otherwise to the new country. Gibson isn't one of these. by virtue of his place of birth he has a connection with this country.... it's a slightly different situation as i see it. and seeing under the old rules the 5 deserved a special arrangment, i don't see how you cannot justify a new agreement in this kind of situation.

he's not a brazilian born superstar who we decided to give a passport too so he can play. he's someone who identifies himself with our country and is a citizen by birth...

Erin Go Brath

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Lets repeat this for the slow learners. Citizenship alone does not allow you to play for a country. This debate will be very circular until that reality is acknowledged.

What you are asking is FIFA to make a ruling on the Irish national question, one they are most certainly not going to do. He is a citizen of one FIFA juristiction of which he has no blood line (by their rule) and he has never lived there and doesnt' hold the passport of the juriscticion he was born in. This complicates the issue, and much as I want to see him in the FAI colours for a number of reasons, both sporting and political, FIFA will have to be neutral on this.

The IFA know that he will never play for them, but they are trying to put a lid on guys of a nationalist persuasion bolting on them.

So lets say for argument sake the IFA win, and FIFA rule Darren is ineligible to play for the RoI. What happens next?

Lets say FAI decide to appeal the ruling to European Courts. I'm pretty sure the rule of law in a country will override FIFA's decision to render Darren ineligiblie for the RoI. It would be contravening Darrens rights to prevent him to play for the RoI.

OhNoYouDidn't

leninbenjamin wrote: »

but he qualified for that citizenship by virtue of his place of birth. i know citizenship alone doesn't mean squat in the eyes of FIFA, but one of the factors that can is the place of birth. and because people born in the North are entitled to both citizenship i think it confuddles the issue more than your suggesting. the original ruling was in regards naturalised citizens with no real connection otherwise to the new country. Gibson isn't one of these. by virtue of his place of birth he has a connection with this country.... it's a slightly different situation as i see it. and seeing under the old rules the 5 deserved a special arrangment, i don't see how you cannot justify a new agreement in this kind of situation.

he's not a brazilian born superstar who we decided to give a passport too so he can play. he's someone who identifies himself with our country and is a citizen by birth...

it makes no difference to FIFA if they are neigbouring countries or brazilians playing for quatar. technically he is ineligible. He isnt a citizen by birth, he is a citizen by treaty, the GFA. They see the black and white argument that he is a naturalised citizen, the subtelties of the Irish national debate cannot enter FIFA's reckoning.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

So lets say for argument sake the IFA win, and FIFA rule Darren is ineligible to play for the RoI. What happens next?.

FAI recieve a huge fine and points deduction and he remains ours.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Lets say FAI decide to appeal the ruling to European Courts. I'm pretty sure the rule of law in a country will override FIFA's decision to render Darren ineligiblie for the RoI. It would be contravening Darrens rights to prevent him to play for the RoI.

His 'right'? Do I have this right too? If footballers are not controlled by EU employment law, what chance have you got of the GFA being accepted? FIFA rules supercede national law, always have, always will.

_blank_

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

FIFA rules supercede national law, always have, always will.

Have you never heard of Jean-Marc Bosman?

For those too young to remember, before the Bosman Ruling, when a player came to the end of his contract, clubs could still demand transfer fees for them.

This rule was changed to fit with National and European Laws. (When a Euro law is passed, it automatically comes into law in member states.)

Erin Go Brath

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

His 'right'? Do I have this right too? If footballers are not controlled by EU employment law, what chance have you got of the GFA being accepted? FIFA rules supercede national law, always have, always will.

Thats a load of rubbish! If FIFA vote against Darrens eligibility for RoI. The decision will certaintly be overturned by European law. If this does go down that road the European Courts taking into consideration the nuances of the GFA have no alternative. He is IRISH, and he wishes to express that by playing for the RoI. Ergo his rights will have been abused by not allowing him to play for the RoI.

BaZmO*

DesF wrote: »

Have you never heard of Jean-Marc Bosman?

For those too young to remember, before the Bosman Ruling, when a player came to the end of his contract, clubs could still demand transfer fees for them.

This rule was changed to fit with National and European Laws. (When a Euro law is passed, it automatically comes into law in member states.)

Actually, another point of the Bosman Ruling was probably more significant with regards to foreign player quotas....

The Bosman ruling also prohibited domestic football leagues in EU member states, and also UEFA, from imposing quotas on foreign players to the extent that they discriminated against nationals of EU states. At that time, many leagues placed quotas restricting the number of non-nationals allowed on member teams.

which ties into the point that FIFA rules do not necessarily over rule European laws.

DerekD Goldfish

What about the tons of people up the north that regard themselves as Irish?

they are Irish
Northern Irish
I dont see any reason why they should be entitled to play for ROI
When Czechslovikia split players playing for them counld chose which to play for
but now I assume a player born in slovakia would have to meet one off the other criteria to play for Czech
Why should NI/ROI be any different
If Gibbson donsnt want to play for his real country thats his problem not FIFA's

leninbenjamin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

it makes no difference to FIFA if they are neigbouring countries or brazilians playing for quatar. technically he is ineligible. He isnt a citizen by birth, he is a citizen by treaty, the GFA. They see the black and white argument that he is a naturalised citizen, the subtelties of the Irish national debate cannot enter FIFA's reckoning.

but does the GFA not confer that though? isn't that what that individual clause was about? it conferred citizenship of the republic by virtue of being born on the entire island. unless i'm completely misunderstanding what the GFA states, but was GIbson not granted citizenship of the republic by virtue of his birth???

OhNoYouDidn't

leninbenjamin wrote: »

but does the GFA not confer that though? isn't that what that individual clause was about? it conferred citizenship of the republic by virtue of being born on the entire island. unless i'm completely misunderstanding what the GFA states, but was GIbson not granted citizenship of the republic by virtue of his birth???

No. He was born in Derry as were his parents and grandparents. He is of course an Irish citizen, but that right is granted by virtue of an agreement with London on dual citizenship. He isnt an Irish citizen by birth in the way someone from Dublin is. Its splitting hairs, but once this got into the hands of lawyers this is how it was going to go down.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the rules seem to be on the Nordies side here.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Thats a load of rubbish! If FIFA vote against Darrens eligibility for RoI. The decision will certaintly be overturned by European law. If this does go down that road the European Courts taking into consideration the nuances of the GFA have no alternative. He is IRISH, and he wishes to express that by playing for the RoI. Ergo his rights will have been abused by not allowing him to play for the RoI.

Which European law though? Since Bosman FIFA are stringent about not allowing the courts or politicians to interfere with their rules. Remember they nearly threw Portugal and their clubs out of all comeptitions because a club objected to a points deduction? According to FIFA and the EU he is Northern Irish, as that is the national juristiction of which he was born, raised and his family or from. He may have another passport, but if I join the French Foreign Legion and get my French passport, I'm not eligible to play for them. Citizenship is not enough, right or wrong. Deal with that reality!! The granny rule is essentially gone, no more Andy Townsends or Clinton O'Morrisons.

Look at this from a legal angle, not a political one. You are asking FIFA and the European Courts to rule that the Irish side of the debate is stronger than the unionist one, and thats not going to happen. Prepare yourself for the fact we have the moral high ground, they have the legal one

Andrew 83

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Thats a load of rubbish! If FIFA vote against Darrens eligibility for RoI. The decision will certaintly be overturned by European law. If this does go down that road the European Courts taking into consideration the nuances of the GFA have no alternative. He is IRISH, and he wishes to express that by playing for the RoI. Ergo his rights will have been abused by not allowing him to play for the RoI.

I think he should be allowed play for the Republic and that the IFA's case is ridiculous but do FIFA not have a ruling of suspending members who try to take legal action rather than accepting their rulings? They used this threat against the Italian clubs during Calciopoli. If we did try to take the case legally we would probably be barred from all international competitions until it was over and the League of Ireland clubs would be suspended from all international club competitions.

eirebhoy

DerekD Goldfish wrote: »

they are Irish
Northern Irish
I dont see any reason why they should be entitled to play for ROI
When Czechslovikia split players playing for them counld chose which to play for
but now I assume a player born in slovakia would have to meet one off the other criteria to play for Czech
Why should NI/ROI be any different
If Gibbson donsnt want to play for his real country thats his problem not FIFA's

Slovakia has always been there. Czechoslovakia was only formed last century. Anyone that regarded themselves as a Slovak will be able to play for them. This is a completely different case and there's a reason Gibson is eligible for an Irish passport.

As someone mentioned, the new FIFA rule was introduced because some countries were given citizenship to any player that'd improve their team. Of course by FIFA law he isn't eligible but this is a flaw in that law.

OhNoYouDidn't

eirebhoy wrote: »

Slovakia has always been there. Czechoslovakia was only formed last century. Anyone that regarded themselves as a Slovak will be able to play for them. This is a completely different case and there's a reason Gibson is eligible for an Irish passport.

As someone mentioned, the new FIFA rule was introduced because some countries were given citizenship to any player that'd improve their team. Of course by FIFA law he isn't eligible but this is a flaw in that law.

you are taking a very simplified view of all this:

Anyone that regarded themselves as a Slovak will be able to play for them. No, anyone who has a Slovak passport and fulfils one of the 3 criteria can play for them.

No-one wants to lost this case, we are all in unison that he is an Irishman who should be entitled to play for them. But that doesnt mean the IFA arent technically correct.

eirebhoy wrote: »

As someone mentioned, the new FIFA rule was introduced because some countries were given citizenship to any player that'd improve their team. .

The irony seems to be lost on a lot of posters that Jacks plastic army were one of the phenomenon that FIFA are trying to eliminate. FAI past hurting FAI present.

Whats the difference between Clinton Morrison and a Brazilian playing for Quatar? We rode our luck on the margins of FIFA eligibility rules for years and now (possibly) find ourselves on the wrong side of the coin.

eirebhoy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

you are taking a very simplified view of all this:

Anyone that regarded themselves as a Slovak will be able to play for them. No, anyone who has a Slovak passport and fulfils one of the 3 criteria can play for them.

This is a unique case though so it can't be compared to Czechoslovakia splitting. If there's a person in this world that hasn't lived in Slovakia for at least 2 years and hasn't got a parent or grandparent that is Slovakian then they're not Slovak. It's as simple as that. Northern Ireland has always been part of Ireland. They have a right to Irish citizenship for good reason and therefore should have the right to play for Ireland. FIFA will have to alter their rules.

And if someone wants to be pedantic and mention the fact it's the "Republic" then you're as bad as the IFA.

PDN

eirebhoy wrote: »

If a player born in the north wants to play for Ireland I doubt it's anything but for patriotic reasons. The IFA know this of course.

Nonsense. My wife's family are Northern Protestants and all of them say any footballer given the choice would play for the Republic rather than NI because they stand a better chance of winning things (this was before Staunton was appointed).

So do you think Andy Townsend and Tony Cascarino wanted to play for Ireland for purely patriotic reasons?

eirebhoy

PDN wrote: »

Nonsense. My wife's family are Northern Protestants and all of them say any footballer given the choice would play for the Republic rather than NI because they stand a better chance of winning things (this was before Staunton was appointed).

So do you think Andy Townsend and Tony Cascarino wanted to play for Ireland for purely patriotic reasons?

Jesus I thought they'd be a lot more patriotic than that in the north.

PDN

eirebhoy wrote: »

Jesus I thought they'd be a lot more patriotic than that in the north.

No, they're pretty much the same as most of us down here. Apart from the vocal minorities on both sides of the sectarian divide they don't give a toss.

Makes sense to me. I'd happily trade my citizenship tomorrow to Japanese, Israeli, French or anything else if it made my life better. I didn't ask to be born in this country and I don't see that an accident of birth should make me love it more than anywhere else in the world.

eirebhoy

I couldn't represent anyone but Ireland so you can't blame me if I don't understand that tbh.

PDN

eirebhoy wrote: »

I couldn't represent anyone but Ireland so you can't blame me if I don't understand that tbh.

Lots of people feel that way, but then they feel that way about their clubs too. I couldn't play for anyone but Arsenal.

Wayne Rooney couldn't play for anyone except Everton. "Once a blue, always a blue" - unless you get the chance to play in the Champions League.

Bounty Hunter

PDN wrote: »

Lots of people feel that way, but then they feel that way about their clubs too. I couldn't play for anyone but Arsenal.

Wayne Rooney couldn't play for anyone except Everton. "Once a blue, always a blue" - unless you get the chance to play in the Champions League.

true but seing as you chose Wayne Rooney as the example, he was eligable to play for almost all the home nations yet chose England because he is English.

Unearthly

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

true but seing as you chose Wayne Rooney as the example, he was eligable to play for almost all the home nations yet chose England because he is English.

and England are a far better team and make nearly every International tournament

Erin Go Brath

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No. He was born in Derry as were his parents and grandparents. He is of course an Irish citizen, but that right is granted by virtue of an agreement with London on dual citizenship. He isnt an Irish citizen by birth in the way someone from Dublin is. Its splitting hairs, but once this got into the hands of lawyers this is how it was going to go down.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the rules seem to be on the Nordies side here.



Which European law though? Since Bosman FIFA are stringent about not allowing the courts or politicians to interfere with their rules. Remember they nearly threw Portugal and their clubs out of all comeptitions because a club objected to a points deduction? According to FIFA and the EU he is Northern Irish, as that is the national juristiction of which he was born, raised and his family or from. He may have another passport, but if I join the French Foreign Legion and get my French passport, I'm not eligible to play for them. Citizenship is not enough, right or wrong. Deal with that reality!! The granny rule is essentially gone, no more Andy Townsends or Clinton O'Morrisons.

Look at this from a legal angle, not a political one. You are asking FIFA and the European Courts to rule that the Irish side of the debate is stronger than the unionist one, and thats not going to happen. Prepare yourself for the fact we have the moral high ground, they have the legal one

I still fail to see how they have the legal high ground The European Court of Human Rights will override FIFAs decision, if they vote in favour of the IFA. It clearly contravenes the GFA. I honestly think the IFA have some balls trying this on. Using some young lad as a pawn in their political vendetta is pathetic. Legally, or morally they don't have a leg to stand on!

darkman2

Any news on this. I have to say this behaviour from the IFA - given NI's troubled past and the fact a minority (substantial) of their population has no allegience to NI football - is an absolute disgrace. FIFA cant rule against DG because the GFA is set in stone and he is an Irish citizen if he chooses to be. Seems like sectarian muppetry at work here if you ask me.

Seaneh

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He may have another passport, but if I join the French Foreign Legion and get my French passport, I'm not eligible to play for them. Citizenship is not enough

Actually, you idiot, it is.

Marcos Senna anyone? Or I'll bring it closer to home for you.

Both Cudicinni and Almunia have been touted as potential England 'keepers as they have no international caps and have been living in the UK long enough to get a brisith passport.

There was even talk of David Fernandez playing for Scotland at one stage.

therecklessone

Seaneh wrote: »

Actually, you idiot, it is.

Marcos Senna anyone? Or I'll bring it closer to home for you.

Both Cudicinni and Almunia have been touted as potential England 'keepers as they have no international caps and have been living in the UK long enough to get a brisith passport.

There was even talk of David Fernandez playing for Scotland at one stage.

Clearly, from all the examples you quoted citizenship is not enough...qualification is dependant on more than citizenship.

leninbenjamin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No. He was born in Derry as were his parents and grandparents. He is of course an Irish citizen, but that right is granted by virtue of an agreement with London on dual citizenship. He isnt an Irish citizen by birth in the way someone from Dublin is. Its splitting hairs, but once this got into the hands of lawyers this is how it was going to go down.

ok, that's the part i dont understand about your argument. how can something which was given the authority to force a change in our constitution be simply seen as an agreement on dual nationality? (i know there is some irony in that statement considering it's name but still...) did both sides of the border not vote to make it a legally binding treaty? the lack of a legal education in me really means i fail to get my head around this.

Seaneh

They had to gain citizenship, but once gained, there was nothing to stpo them playing for thier adoptive countrys.

Citizenship IS enough.

Wasn't the Goalkeeper/Manager of some pacific island from wicklow in the 80's/90's?


If he has an irish passport he is an Irish citizen, If he is an Irish citizen, he has every right, for whatever reason, to play for ireland.

therecklessone

Seaneh wrote: »

They had to gain citizenship, but once gained, there was nothing to stpo them playing for thier adoptive countrys.

Citizenship IS enough.

FIFA rules as mentioned earlier on this thread, qualification based on:

1. Birth in jurisdiction.
2. Lived in jurisdiction for 2+ years.
3. Have a parent/grandparent born in jurisdiction.

Citizenship is not enough (pending the forthcoming ruling), what if a country just gave a passport to a player to get him to declare for them?

darkman2

therecklessone wrote: »

FIFA rules as mentioned earlier on this thread, qualification based on:

1. Birth in jurisdiction.
2. Lived in jurisdiction for 2+ years.
3. Have a parent/grandparent born in jurisdiction.

Citizenship is not enough (pending the forthcoming ruling), what if a country just gave a passport to a player to get him to declare for them?

I dont think you understand. NI is an exception because of the GFA. Thats it. Debate over. FIFA cannot rule against DG.


On another point the IFA are clearly suffering from sour grapes. AFAIK DG said he will not play for NI. TBH its the IFA that needs to be wrapped on the knuckles for this. They want to end this players international career like certain fans up there ended Neil Lennons international career in one of the most disgusting and vile vendettas I think there has ever been in European football. The real issue FIFA need to look at is the sectarian nature of the NI football team.

therecklessone

darkman2 wrote: »

I dont think you understand. NI is an exception because of the GFA. Thats it. Debate over. FIFA cannot rule against DG.

Says who, you? I think I'll wait for FIFA to make their ruling if you don't mind.

PHB

People are ignoring the key issue, which is that Northern Ireland aren't a nation. Scotland aren't a nation, nor are Wales. Technically, there should be only one team there, and that's the United Kingdom. However there are special rules in place for the home countries. That complicates the issue even further. FIFA doesn't normally get involved in the whole political disputes, just whatever country you happen to be in they'll go with.

I understand the whole thing that FIFA want to do in relation to stopping Brazilians playing for whatever country they happen to be in etc., but they'd be pretty stupid to not allow Gibson to play for Ireland. IMO, Gibson will defo play for Ireland. There's no way in hell FIFA are gona make him inelligable to play for any country, if only because then the PFA will get involved. What will happen is one of two things,

A. FIFA will tell the IFA to **** off.
B. FIFA will agree with the IFA, say Gibson will be the last case of it, and then from now on people will have to play for the North.

I'd be really shocking if Gibson wasn't playing for the Republic, also desperately disappointed.

OhNoYouDidn't

therecklessone wrote: »

Clearly, from all the examples you quoted citizenship is not enough...qualification is dependant on more than citizenship.

exactly, he called me an idiot and proved my point. :rolleyes:

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I still fail to see how they have the legal high ground The European Court of Human Rights will override FIFAs decision, if they vote in favour of the IFA. It clearly contravenes the GFA. I honestly think the IFA have some balls trying this on. Using some young lad as a pawn in their political vendetta is pathetic. Legally, or morally they don't have a leg to stand on!

SO WHAT? What makes you think FIFA are bound by Irish domestic law? They are based in Switzerland so as to not be in the EU/UN etc and bound by their laws. People have got to get a grip and realise that FIFA call the shots. Basic employment law doesnt apply to players for a reason.

The rules of eligibilty, right or wrong are clear. So to say legally they dont have a leg to stand on is profound ignorance of the sport. Morally, I agree, but its a farcical thing to say.

I hate to trivialise the GFA, but if Quatar decided to change their law to allow all Brazilian men aged 18 - 35 who move there citizens, would FIFA be obliged to allow it? Wait a minuite, they did, and FIFA hit them for 6.

PHB wrote: »

if only because then the PFA will get involved.

which PFA? Irish, Northern Irish? English? Not a factor because his career isn't involved.

PHB wrote: »

I'd be really shocking if Gibson wasn't playing for the Republic, also desperately disappointed.

No-one is saying he will be foced to change teams, but we are possibly facing a points deduction, and it will clearly make us think twice about sourcing our players in the 6 again, which is the real issue.

darkman2

The GFA is a very important international agreement between two countries unique in Europe. It gives Irish citizens in NI the full right to be Irish if they choose. It was used to end a conflict and I and many other people would not take kindly to FIFA deciding for them what nationality they should choose to be. It has absolutely nothing to do with them. People who are born in NI have the right to full Irish citizenship and thats that. There is no confusion about this at all. The IFA can moan all they like but that is an international agreement not up for debate because FIFA says so. Even if FIFA decided against DG (which im telling you they cannot) there would be ruptions because it would contravene and effectively relegate Irish citizens in NI to not being allowed represent their country. NI is unique and FIFA know that and will have enough common sense to see it that way.

PHB

Except that, the guy who helped draft the GFA is meant to be helping out the IFA, and says the GFA has nothing to do with football, and was never intended to be interpreted that way.

As for the PFA, I'd imagine if he gets told he can't play for the Republic, and then the North don't pick him, the PFA wouldn't be too impressed with that result.

darkman2

Far more then one person drafted the GFA. The politics behind this by the IFA anger me - its not just about DG or poaching (supposedly) - there is more to it then that.

PHB

What else is it about?