Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

How should International Eligibility work?

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,921 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭ziggy


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭shane86


    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? ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭OPENROAD


    shane86 wrote: »
    :rolleyes:



    We?

    Who, Arsenal? ;)



    :D:D Well spoted, I mean you. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,437 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,437 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,198 Mod ✭✭✭✭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. :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,454 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,437 ✭✭✭luckylucky


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,478 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,478 ✭✭✭Bubs101





    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,013 ✭✭✭✭eirebhoy


    ziggy wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    You've a Malaysian in the Scotland squad then. ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭shane86


    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. :confused:

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,454 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    eirebhoy wrote: »
    You've a Malaysian in the Scotland squad then. ;)

    And a few Englishmen


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,198 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,437 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    I think the rules as they stand are ok. there are certain places that may need a bit more than a solid rule, like here in ireland. if a player is born in Northern Ireland, but wants to play for the Republic, then let him. Look at what happened to Neil Lennon when he played for Northern Ireland after playing for Celtic. If a person feels affiliated with the Republic, then he should be allowed play for the republic, and vice versa if it ever arises.IMO


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭ziggy


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 621 ✭✭✭Magic Pips


    Here's a good one... Eduardo... the croatian!! lolz!

    Deco from Portugal?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,013 ✭✭✭✭eirebhoy


    Would football be the only sport in the world where actual citizenship doesn't make you automatically eligible for that country?


Advertisement