How should International Eligibility work?

GuanYin

From the Ireland Squad thread:

shane86 wrote: »

I suppose one ray of light is that Stephen, who was born here, was eligible for us, England and (apparently) Italy through family connections. While I doubt he ever thought he could make Italy (not saying hes a bad player, he is one of our best developing players....but Italy....c`mon like ), there would be a chance he coulda made the England squad, so I guess him picking us over them is a plus in terms of whether he will come back.

As for the French, Viera was born in Senegal. Apparently there was once a verbal between him and Keane in the tunnel that went something like

Viera "I would never walk out on my country"
Keane "You never even played for your country"


Other notables would be Karembeu who was born in the Pacific, and I think Thuram and Malouda are from the French carribean. Personally Ive always thought elibibility should go on either

a- Birth in the country

b- The grandparent rule (pretty much any country who had its populaion depleted by emigration due to a bad post colonial economic state does it, its fair imo. Half of some Carribean teams are made up of black English C`ship players)

c- Growing up in the country. Viera I can live with, he was a kid when he came to France. Middle Eastern states granting passports to Brazillians who arrive to play club football in their late teens, or Poland and that Nigerian dude is not on imo

I honestly would like to see eligibility rules changed.

Basically it favours the old empires, anyone who has ever invaded another country is always going to do better.


It basically means the status quo stays for years to come and the likes of Senegal will never match France in terms of talent pool/

What I'd like to see happen is eligibility work like this:

1. A player is automatically qualified to play for the country they are born in.

2. If another country that the player is eligible to play for through citizenship enquires for a player that is U21, the birth country may object.

3. If the country of birth does not cap a player in next 3 squads after eligibility for U21 has passed, they lose the right to stop the player declaring for another country.

4. In this system, only U18 and higher caps are eligible to disbar someone from playing for another country - ie. a player must be an adult when declaring.

In this model, Ireland would probably suffer, but it may indeed strengthen our National League if we are forced to draw more players from there.

On the other hand, imperial countries would lose their foreign supply factories.


Wouldn't solve our dispute with the North tho

OPENROAD

What was the story with Tony Cascarino?

Xavi6

OPENROAD wrote: »

What was the story with Tony Cascarino?

Italy is a colony of Ireland so he was eligible. It was all legit.

shane86

I think, largely, it is ok as it is. I have a problem with two things though:

a- The likes of France and Holland using players from carribean colonies who never grew up in either country. I know they are passport holders from birth but it just doesnt sit right tbh. IMO there should be a cut off point, like the player should have lived in the country from maybe 12 or below, and with his family as opposed to being bought by a club.

b- Handing out passports to moderately tlented Brazillian adults who will never make their own national side, its a low way to go about it tbh

I have no problem with the grandfather rule. England and France have benefited greatly from immigrants/kids of immigrants, why cant countries like Ireland who due to colonial economic mismanagement are missing alot more young people than we should not get a fair whack too?

estebancambias

Yeah countries like us and other either poverty or former poverty stricken countries where people were forced to leave their land for work are at an instant loss.

Anyway most of the English players now who play for Ireland, genuinely feel a real bond with Ireland.The only one who seems a bit 'plastic' is Steven Reid.

eirebhoy

Maybe you're right about Reid but as far as I remember he made his debut for Ireland as a highly rated 19 year old. I think he's 50% Irish with his dad born here and emigrating.

estebancambias

No, that is only my impression really, I hope your right to be honest.

LuckyLloyd

In my opinion it should be that you are eligible to play international football if you can produce a passport from that country (or citizenship papers or whatever). And obviously, once you play U18+ for a country you can't change down the line if you add a citizenship.

Parent rules / granny rules etc, etc are lol.

KdjaCL

If you played Schoolboy in the country of choice then you eglible.


my rule is actually the best rule for 2 reasons.

1: you lived there and played ball there as a kid.
2. You lived there and played ball there as a kid.

I always right


kdjac

PHB

Then Giggs would have to play for England.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

_blank_

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Double standards in Irish football fans?

What are you talking about?

shane86

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eh?

France and Holland are taking lads who are nearly adults who have never lived in mainland France and putting them on the national team, just making benefit of having colonised Carribean countries.

Which is alot different to us using a pool of players who, if we had never suffered so badly economically, likely would have been born in this country.

_blank_

I wonder will the children of all of our new African community, our Eastern European community etc play for Ireland, or the motherland?

I wonder what we'll all think then.

estebancambias

Its their choice to decide if they want to play for Ireland or their homeland. Its simple. If they feel Irish, then they play for Ireland, if they feel Lithuanian, then they play for Lithuania.

_blank_

estebancambias wrote: »

Its their choice to decide if they want to play for Ireland or their homeland. Its simple. If they feel Irish, then they play for Ireland, if they feel Lithuanian, then they play for Lithuania.

How "Irish" do you reckon Clint-on feels?

How Irish do you reckon he would have felt if Jamaica had have been in WC2002, and not Ireland?

It's mercenaries like that who should never represent Ireland, imo.

How "Irish" did Matt Holland feel while he was standing in Wembley for a play off with Ipswich Town, belting out God Save The Queen?

estebancambias

I agree with that. They are the sort that should not be on any Int. team.

Benedict XVI

shane86 wrote: »

Eh?

France and Holland are taking lads who are nearly adults who have never lived in mainland France and putting them on the national team,

And how is that different from Ireland taking lads, from the UK,. who are nearly adults who have never lived in the Republic of Eire and putting them on the national team

shane86

DesF wrote: »

I wonder will the children of all of our new African community, our Eastern European community etc play for Ireland, or the motherland?

I wonder what we'll all think then.

That its their own perogative?

Yes, we would be pissed if these players were actually good. How many soccer powerhouses do we have in our migrant population? Nigeria is the only one I can come up with that has any big population here, so basically any of the rest of the kids who decide to play for their parents homeland prob cant make the Irish squad, in the same way that, yes, we get English born players who will never get a game for England.

Morrison scored his fair share of goals and played decent all round. What is the issue?

Benedict XVI wrote: »

And how is that different from Ireland taking lads, from the UK,. who are nearly adults who have never lived in the Republic of Eire and putting them on the national team

It was colonialism that put us and most of the Carribean in the position of having to send half of our young people abroad. We are owed a favour.

_blank_

shane86 wrote: »

Morrison scored his fair share of goals and played decent all round. What is the issue?

The issue?

Something that was claimed Steve Finnan needed to show a bit of earlier in the week. National Pride.

Clint-on has no pride in wearing the green jersey. None. he would have picked Jamaica if they were in WC2002 and Ireland weren't. He's a mercenary. If that's the type of player you are happy to see represent you, then more power to you, but I gave up on it a long time ago.

_blank_

shane86 wrote: »

It was colonialism that put us and most of the Carribean in the position of having to send half of our young people abroad. We are owed a favour.

EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS!!!!!11121111eleventy111one2twelve!!111

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

gosplan

DesF wrote: »

He's a mercenary.

An unpaid mercenary? I see your point but you're being a bit harsh.


Anyway, I think you should all be quiet about this as in a few eyars ireland should be reaping the benifits of our recent influx of international bretheren.

As regards who'd people play for, generally I think they'll pick the best team they're elegible for - thats understandable.

Otherwise they may have a very strong tie to their country of choice.

Which one of these in McGeedy?

_blank_

gosplan wrote: »

Which one of these in McGeedy?

He tried to pick the best, but that idea fell on it's arse. Much like McGeady when he plays for Ireland.

scruff321

gosplan wrote: »

An unpaid mercenary? I see your point but you're being a bit harsh.


Anyway, I think you should all be quiet about this as in a few eyars ireland should be reaping the benifits of our recent influx of international bretheren.

As regards who'd people play for, generally I think they'll pick the best team they're elegible for - thats understandable.

Otherwise they may have a very strong tie to their country of choice.

Which one of these in McGeedy?

agree with gosplan,i think we'll find that in 10 -15 years our ireland squad will be alot more ethnicly diverse and possibly see some great players.. clintons playin for us because he cant play for england same as the majority of other english born players they just want to play international football.

shane86

DesF wrote: »

Clint-on has no pride in wearing the green jersey. None. he would have picked Jamaica if they were in WC2002 and Ireland weren't. He's a mercenary. If that's the type of player you are happy to see represent you, then more power to you, but I gave up on it a long time ago.

And you know this how exactly?

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes. But we have more right.

Holland and France pluck talented players from overseas territory they forcibly took over way back when.

Ireland and several Carribean/African countries take foreign born players who, if we had never been colonised/left in a bad economic state might well have been born in this country.

In terms of kids of said immigrants actually born in the country, the English has benefit from god knows how many. 80% odd of the French team is of migrant origin. The Dutch had Gullit, Rijkard, Kluivert etc etc. So how come the countries who sent them out cant get a favour returned? I dont want to see a national team composed entirely of English born players, and yeah maybe there should be some type of cap on how many to field per line up, but its only fair that we should be allowed to use one or two, given our history.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

pickarooney

shane86 wrote: »

And you know this how exactly?



Yes. But we have more right.

Holland and France pluck talented players from overseas territory they forcibly took over way back when.

Ireland and several Carribean/African countries take foreign born players who, if we had never been colonised/left in a bad economic state might well have been born in this country.

In terms of kids of said immigrants actually born in the country, the English has benefit from god knows how many. 80% odd of the French team is of migrant origin. The Dutch had Gullit, Rijkard, Kluivert etc etc. So how come the countries who sent them out cant get a favour returned? I dont want to see a national team composed entirely of English born players, and yeah maybe there should be some type of cap on how many to field per line up, but its only fair that we should be allowed to use one or two, given our history.

Who are these players and what are these 'colonies' you keep banging on about. Gullit, Rijkaard and Kluivert were all born in Amsterdam. Are you not just talking complete bollocks in all honesty?

OPENROAD

shane86 wrote: »

And you know this how exactly?



Yes. But we have more right.

Holland and France pluck talented players from overseas territory they forcibly took over way back when.

Ireland and several Carribean/African countries take foreign born players who, if we had never been colonised/left in a bad economic state might well have been born in this country.

In terms of kids of said immigrants actually born in the country, the English has benefit from god knows how manyQUOTE]

But they are English for Christ sake,Jesus we all on about intergration etc.., the likes of Paul Ince,Ian Wright etc... may be from immigrant families but they are ENGLISH,born in ENGLAND, people move around, we will benefit from this now in the years to come.

A Dub in Glasgo

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is too black and white which ignores circumstances of why a person was born in a country and where they were brought up. Being born in a stable does not make you a horse.

oobydooby

What about ignoring where you were born and just focussing on what league you play in. So Irish team made up of EL players. English team would be very good. If managers don't have to be from the country then why should players? (I'm not proposing this simply as a way to disqualify Sam, McClown or Tel from the Irish job:p)

Why can you not change your country the way you change your club or citizenship? A bit unfair if you're born in a country where people prefer other sports. You live there, you pay your taxes there then you can represent the place.

Pigman II

1. You can play for any country that you can obtain citizenship for.
2. Once you play for that country (at any level or in any game) then you're locked to that country for life.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

shane86

pickarooney wrote: »

Who are these players and what are these 'colonies' you keep banging on about. Gullit, Rijkaard and Kluivert were all born in Amsterdam. Are you not just talking complete bollocks in all honesty?

:rolleyes:

Do you believe that players from whatever EPL club you likely support should all have been born and brought up within a few miles of the city the club is based in?

Ok, let me put it to you like this.

If the Dutch had not went to the Carribean x centuries ago, took over islands, and then imported slaves from Africa, Kluivert would likely not have been born in Holland. Now, therefore national teams of former colonial powers have benefited from having taking over said countries many years back.

So basically, if former colonies act as feeders for the fmr colonial power, even if the kids were born in that country, it is only fair that countries that were left with dire economies post colonial rule (i.e. ourselves) should be allowed to have a fair whack.

OPENROAD wrote: »

people move around, we will benefit from this now in the years to come.

We?

Who, Arsenal?

OPENROAD

shane86 wrote: »

:rolleyes:



We?

Who, Arsenal?

:D Well spoted, I mean you.

OhNoYouDidn't

gosplan wrote: »

An unpaid mercenary? I see your point but you're being a bit harsh.


Anyway, I think you should all be quiet about this as in a few eyars ireland should be reaping the benifits of our recent influx of international bretheren.

As regards who'd people play for, generally I think they'll pick the best team they're elegible for - thats understandable.

Otherwise they may have a very strong tie to their country of choice.

Which one of these in McGeedy?

Unpaid maybe, but its clear to me that Clint only picked Ireland to add value to himslef come contract and transfer time.

McGeady is legitimate diaspora who played underage and had an Irish passport long before he was an international player - a different scenario altogether.

The crux of this debate is how we get those who are Irish but born elsewhere into the fold but end the abuse of the system by Brazilans playing for Quatar.

luckylucky

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Parent rules / granny rules etc, etc are lol.

Why?

Doesn't your heritage matter?

I don't live in Ireland as you know Lloyd. If I ever happened to have kids though and one of them turned out to be a great footballer(it could be argued that the kid would be the postman's if that was the case ) and he had a burnign desire to play for the country of his father, i think it'd be ridiculous to say nah you can't play for us you weren't born here. While country of birth and the country you spent most of you life in should count, surely the country of at least your recent forefathers should count for something. Personally i think the grandfather rule is fine, great grandparents is one step too far.

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

boll1x it does. Two of my nieces were born in England (both parents Irish) but moved back to Ireland when they wre approx 10 and 8. When they first moved back they had Southern english accents, now in thier late teens their is no trace of these, to call these 2 girls English would be ridiculous imo.

OPENROAD

It will be very interesting to see how we react in years to come with immigrants that have moved to Ireland and have Irish born kids, and if they decide to go and play for say Nigeria as example, I hope we won't be screaming saying that they should be playing for Ireland.

luckylucky

OPENROAD wrote: »

It will be very interesting to see how we react in years to come with immigrants that have moved to Ireland and have Irish born kids, and if they decide to go and play for say Nigeria as example, I hope we won't be screaming saying that they should be playing for Ireland.

I think you are right that people would feel p1ssed off, if this occured. Rightly or wrongly is another argument, tbh I feel that debate could get messy so best stayed cleer of.

I think there is a difference though from being born in a small country and playing for that country than being being born in a relatively large country and playing for the land of your parents. I actually don't think it's too likely to happen in Ireland, especially if immigrants integrate and are accepted but I might be wrong.

pickarooney

shane86 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Do you believe that players from whatever EPL club you likely support should all have been born and brought up within a few miles of the city the club is based in?

Ok, let me put it to you like this.

If the Dutch had not went to the Carribean x centuries ago, took over islands, and then imported slaves from Africa, Kluivert would likely not have been born in Holland. Now, therefore national teams of former colonial powers have benefited from having taking over said countries many years back.

So basically, if former colonies act as feeders for the fmr colonial power, even if the kids were born in that country, it is only fair that countries that were left with dire economies post colonial rule (i.e. ourselves) should be allowed to have a fair whack.




We?

Who, Arsenal?

Apart from the fact that your post makes absolutely no sense, what should become of players who... well, the only thing I can conclude from the above stream of garbage is... black players? Black players born in Holland - what do you propose be done with them when they're good enough for international colours? Ban them from the Dutch team and force them to play for Curaçao? It's not even a real country and has no national team. Kit them out for Surinam although they may never have set foot there? Pick some random African country and gift them a player as a sorry for slavery? Is this some roundabout magic formula for Ireland to steal Danish players? After all, Norway is a former colony of Denmark, and lord knows enough Irishmen were stolen as slaves by the horny-hats back in the day and hauled off to Nordic climes.

OhNoYouDidn't

luckylucky wrote: »

boll1x it does. Two of my nieces were born in England (both parents Irish) but moved back to Ireland when they wre approx 10 and 8. When they first moved back they had Southern english accents, now in thier late teens their is no trace of these, to call these 2 girls English would be ridiculous imo.

surely the point is that its up to them. they have a choice between being English, Irish or both.

A Dub in Glasgo

Exactly although if the person chooses Ireland, you get all this plastic paddy ****.

My two sons (9 & 5) were born in Glasgow, both parents born and bred in Dublin, they visit Dublin about 5 times a year. They have no relations in Glasgow, they are all in Dublin. Up to now, they have Irish passports. We may or may not return to live in Dublin. If they continue to be Irish, some here would not want them eligible for the national team which is crazy in my mind as they think they are not really Irish.

luckylucky

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

surely the point is that its up to them. they have a choice between being English, Irish or both.

Yeah fair enough. I probably put that a bit too harshly. They consider themselves Irish anyway. I guess if they had moved over here in their teenage years they might view things differently, but they have done most of their growing up in Ireland now.

btw I know of 2 guys offhand who were born in England to english parents (no irish family connections whatsoever) but moved over here when they were 6 and 8 respectively. The guy who moved here when he was 6 still regards himself as English, the guy who moved over here when he was 8 regards himself as Irish. While of course it's a personal choice for both of them, and while they're both sound guys, personally I have more respect for the former guy's choice.

Anyway for me your heritage, recent heritage that is, has got to count for something.

A. I think the grandparent rule is fine. At the very least their should be a parentage rule.
B. French, Dutch, English players of African origin are now an integral part of those two countries, I think it's kinda silly to argue that they should not be playing for those countries. If they have a parent or grandparent say from some carribean country then again it should be down to them whether they wish to play for that country.
C. I disagree with the naturilisation rule, I think it's ridiculous that players like the Nigerian(Not sure if that's right country) guy who plays for Poland and Brazilian players playing for Japan, Qatar, Croatia and probably others. I think there should be a cutoff when it comes to naturalisation. If someone moved to a country before they were say 15 then they should be allowed play.

btw on the Clinton Morrison issue. I don't disagree that he primarily played for us because he wanted the exposure that international football brought. On the other hand I always thought he tried his best with us, even if that best wasn't good enough at times. And he was 1/4 Irish after all, I'd find it hard to believe he didn't at least have some sort of affinity for us.

Bubs101

For me elegibilty should work like this

1) Born in country therefore eligible
2) Parent from country therefore eligible
3) 5 years residency in country therefore eligible

I also think there should be special rules put in place to protect certain countries like Northern Ireland to stop there players being pillaged because of the Good Friday Agreements deal with dual passports

OhNoYouDidn't

Bubs101 wrote: »

For me elegibilty should work like this

1) Born in country therefore eligible
2) Parent from country therefore eligible
3) 5 years residency in country therefore eligible

which is basically the rule as it stands

Bubs101 wrote: »

I also think there should be special rules put in place to protect certain countries like Northern Ireland to stop there players being pillaged because of the Good Friday Agreements deal with dual passports

Like we 'pillaged' Irish born, Irish citizen Darren GIbson? :rolleyes:

Bubs101

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Like we 'pillaged' Irish born, Irish citizen Darren GIbson?

I have no idea which side of the border he was born on but I think that if a player is born in the North and then is invovled with the North at underage level he should have to stick with the North. I would apply the same rule to countries like Algeria and Senegal

eirebhoy

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You've a Malaysian in the Scotland squad then.

shane86

pickarooney wrote: »

Apart from the fact that your post makes absolutely no sense, what should become of players who... well, the only thing I can conclude from the above stream of garbage is... black players? Black players born in Holland - what do you propose be done with them when they're good enough for international colours? Ban them from the Dutch team and force them to play for Curaçao? It's not even a real country and has no national team. Kit them out for Surinam although they may never have set foot there? Pick some random African country and gift them a player as a sorry for slavery? Is this some roundabout magic formula for Ireland to steal Danish players? After all, Norway is a former colony of Denmark, and lord knows enough Irishmen were stolen as slaves by the horny-hats back in the day and hauled off to Nordic climes.

If you cant read what is infront of you why bother contributing?

Jesus, right, here we go

Holland, France and Britain have benefited from having players born on their mainland who are of colonial descent
One could argue that the countries from where their parents came have therefore lost out on talented people who but for history would have been born in said country.

I never once said they should be banned from playing for their country of choice. However it is grossly unfair that countries like Ireland that lost a huge amount of our child bearing age population in the past should not be allowed to poach a player or two.

luckylucky wrote: »

B. French, Dutch, English players of African origin are now an integral part of those two countries, I think it's kinda silly to argue that they should not be playing for those countries. If they have a parent or grandparent say from some carribean country then again it should be down to them whether they wish to play for that country.

btw on the Clinton Morrison issue. I don't disagree that he primarily played for us because he wanted the exposure that international football brought. On the other hand I always thought he tried his best with us, even if that best wasn't good enough at times. And he was 1/4 Irish after all, I'd find it hard to believe he didn't at least have some sort of affinity for us.

If you can show me where I said they shouldnt be playing for the above countries I owe you a pint.

Agreed on Morrison, very underrated. Much like Kilbane this campaign his goals kept the last one going until the latter stages.

A Dub in Glasgo

eirebhoy wrote: »

You've a Malaysian in the Scotland squad then.

And a few Englishmen

pickarooney

shane86 wrote: »

If you cant read what is infront of you why bother contributing?

Jesus, right, here we go

Holland, France and Britain have benefited from having players born on their mainland who are of colonial descent
One could argue that the countries from where their parents came have therefore lost out on talented people who but for history would have been born in said country.

I never once said they should be banned from playing for their country of choice. However it is grossly unfair that countries like Ireland that lost a huge amount of our child bearing age population in the past should not be allowed to poach a player or two.



If you can show me where I said they shouldnt be playing for the above countries I owe you a pint.

Agreed on Morrison, very underrated. Much like Kilbane this campaign his goals kept the last one going until the latter stages.

There's no logic to what you're saying beyond "Johnny gets money off his rich parents, so I'm going to rob the sweetshop". EOF.

luckylucky

shane86 wrote: »

If you can show me where I said they shouldnt be playing for the above countries I owe you a pint.

Fair enough, my apologies.