What’s your most controversial opinion? **Read OP** **Mod Note in Post #3372**

That was tongue in cheek. The other example is the subject of quite a lot of research.

In the absence of outright victory, or in an effort to prevent further bloodshed, warring sides negotiate and the weaker side, with more to lose has to make concessions. Once that is agreed, and the war ends, then yes, further murders may be seen as an act of terrorism. Have I missed something, did the war end today?

How was your decision chosen for you? You could have told Putin to get out of Crimea.

Why should I be happy?

War isn’t over, eventually both sides will negotiate, it may be Russia who leaves Crimea if Ukraine gets the upper hand, countries are never happy to concede territory, but they may have to do so to prevent more of their people being slaughtered.

LOL The IRA killed innocent people in bombing campaigns in Northern Ireland and the mainland UK, the Ukrainians are just killing Russian soldiers. its in no way comparible and you know it.

If your post on this thread has more than four likes, it's not really that controversial of an opinion.

If I was made president of FIFA, I would ban the whole parent/grandparent rule (whereby a football player can be born and raised in Country A but because they've a parent/grandparent from Country B, that enables them to play for Country B). I would bring in three simple rules that makes a player eligible to play for a country - they MUST be born there, they must they MUST have spent a significant part of life there (i.e. up to school boy/girl level) and they MUST speak the language of the country they're representing. No exceptions.

I'm sure it's a hard one for us Irish to take given so many of our soccer heroes from down the years were born/raised in England and Scotland but let's be honest, would any of them have declared being Irish if they a) knew their own country called them up or b) knew there was no hope they'd play at a World Cup/Euros with Ireland?

Before this WC, there was a list going around of about 50 players that were playing for a country but born elsewhere (likely grew up there too). Look at Breel Embolo, a lad born in Yaounde, Cameroon and scored the only goal of the game last week for Switzerland against Cameroon. Sorry but I will never consider him to be "Swiss". Matty Cash, born and reared in England all his life is playing for Poland at this WC (Polish mother), can't speak a word of Polish. Middle eastern countries have been on a drive the last few years to naturalise South Americans that they have shoehorned into their national sides - I could be here all day giving examples.

The most laughable example is the 2010 World Cup where Germany played Ghana. Germany had Jerome Boeteng in their starting eleven while Ghana lined up with his brother Kevin-Prince Boateng. Imagine, two brothers playing for two different countries against each other. International football has been hugely diluted because of this.

If we look at our own team, there are lads like Michael Obafemi who was born in Dublin but moved to London at a young age and was raised there. I would rule him out on the basis that he doesn't meet one of the criteria mentioned above. I mean really, would he actually "feel" Irish? It's a fairly weak connection and I'd have no doubt if England came calling he'd jump at the chance to go with them. Same with Calum Robinson, a lad who was born in Northampton and spent his life there, representing England underage before declaring for Ireland through an Irish mother. I could go on with past and present players.

Someone like Kevin Kilbane is a tough one. Although he doesn't fit the criteria above (born in Preston) both his parents are Irish and he rejected England from underage level wishing instead to represent Ireland. David Connolly another similar example. I believe the parent/grandparent rule was introduced to allow lads like that to represent the country they had most affiliation to but it feels like nowadays it takes the p!ss. Any loose connection is deemed adequate and living in a country for a few years (5 I believe?) is enough to be "naturalised" thus being able to represent that country.

All of this would no doubt mean Ireland having a weaker team due to a smaller pool of players to choose from but it would at least be representative of Ireland. Might sound harsh but I cringe when I hear a lad with a thick English accent being interviewed.

Agree with language part, people are fine with forcing schoolkids, not fine with having to do the work themselves and make all sorts of excuses as to why they aren't bothered.

Some lines would never have made money, but the land should have been retained in state ownership and not sold off or allowed to be squatted upon, for future use.

Where is the line between encouragement and throat-forcing?