How should International Eligibility work?

GuanYin · 24-01-2008 10:31PM #1

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 · 24-01-2008 10:35PM

What was the story with Tony Cascarino?

Xavi6 · 24-01-2008 10:50PM

OPENROAD wrote: »

What was the story with Tony Cascarino?

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

shane86 · 24-01-2008 10:50PM

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 · 24-01-2008 10:54PM

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 · 24-01-2008 11:44PM

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 · 24-01-2008 11:45PM

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

LuckyLloyd · 24-01-2008 11:50PM

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 · 25-01-2008 12:55AM

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 · 25-01-2008 02:50AM

Then Giggs would have to play for England.

ziggy · 25-01-2008 03:50AM

This post has been deleted.

_blank_ · 25-01-2008 10:23AM

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Double standards in Irish football fans?

What are you talking about?

shane86 · 25-01-2008 10:50AM

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_ · 25-01-2008 10:52AM

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 · 25-01-2008 12:30PM

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_ · 25-01-2008 12:38PM

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 · 25-01-2008 02:01PM

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

Benedict XVI · 25-01-2008 03:02PM

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 · 25-01-2008 03:05PM

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_ · 25-01-2008 03:08PM

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_ · 25-01-2008 03:09PM

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 · 25-01-2008 03:48PM

This post has been deleted.

gosplan · 25-01-2008 04:34PM

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_ · 25-01-2008 04:40PM

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 · 25-01-2008 04:44PM

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 · 25-01-2008 05:34PM

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 · 25-01-2008 06:06PM

This post has been deleted.

pickarooney · 26-01-2008 02:14AM

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 · 26-01-2008 02:45AM

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 · 26-01-2008 08:52AM

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 · 26-01-2008 12:07PM

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.

How should International Eligibility work?

Comments