Freddy Cap-tied Issue

[MichaelMc]

I was the guy arguing on the other thread that was arguing that Freddy is NOT cap-tied because the rules are ambiguous.You are still the fool because you don't understand the difference between FIFA allegedly deciding to change their clearly written rules and your incorrect claim that the rules are ambiguous. We are right and you are wrong.

We all mentioned that FIFA could change their rules if they wanted to. The current written rule is a change from the previous decision that didn't allow any exceptions for multi-nationals to switch associations after being cap-tied.

FIFA has allegedly decided to change the rule, which was always an option. They can also remove the exception and go back to the original ruling if they decide to.

The previous discussions were based on the written rules and were not a prediction that FIFA would never change the written rules. I expect FIFA will release a circular with the allegedly changed rules if they have been changed as suggested.

[onefineesq]

FC, not to take this thread in a bad direction, er, more in a bad direction, but many Americans in, say, February 2003, didn't think Saddam had WMDs despite assurances from a hell of a lot of important, presumably informed people. And those Americans were right. They believed their own common sense and other news reports. Guys like Rumsfeld who said "we know where they are, around Baghdad and Tikrit" were wrong. Colin Powell was wrong at the UN. Experts can be wrong.


I wouldn't be 100% sure. Let's say Ghana plays Adu in the ACofN against, say, Egypt. (I have no idea if Egypt is in it or in Ghana's group. Just play along.) If Ghana wins, Egypt would protest that Ghana used an ineligble player.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/fifa%5fstatutes%5f0719%5fen%5f14479.pdf

Egypt CAN sue FIFA. See articles 59 through 61. They can sue in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Given the rule as written, it's hard to see how FIFA could win. So if Ghana uses Freddy in an official match, and Ghana gets a result, the opponent will surely appeal to FIFA, and if FIFA upholds Adu playing for Ghana, that opponent will go to the CAS and win there.

FIFA can say whatever the hell they want, but the CAS is going to see "A level" in the statute, and see all the ways in which FIFA counts friendlies as A level matches, and that will be that. 2 problems with this. First, there is no way that Egypt would be able to get to the Court of Arbitration in time for it to matter in terms of the ACN. The tournament would be over by the time it was heard. Second, am I wrong in believing that at the time that the rule was written, it was made to apply retroactively? (meaning players who had already technically "chosen" a country by playing for them under the previous RULE, but were still then currently under the 21 age limit were allowed to go back and change). If that is the case, FIFA could simply go back in, adjust the rule with retroactive effect again, stating that the rule had been meant to apply to games that are qualifiers or actual tournament games, and they are adjusting it to further that intent. Case closed, because the issue is now moot.

[MichaelMc]

I'm no lawyer either, but the one thing I can say is that for all his trouble and unfair attacks, Grant might be able to get a great article out of this, because what FIFA says and what it writes sure look different to me.Grant still did a piss poor job of reporting even if he did allegedly stumble to the correct answer.

John Schumacher came to his conclusion by misinterpreting the rules he cited and Grant never examined the cited sources.

Adu is allegedly able to play for Ghana not because of the rules that Grant and John cited but because FIFA has allegedly decided to change the rules. There was a good story there that Grant ignored, maybe he'll look into it now and get it right.

[americanista_76]

This thread raises a question I had from the other night: Why was Zizzo out there against Sweden and not Adu? Nothing against Zizzo, but we really ought to see Bob raising up Freddy for 2010. I'm pretty certain Freddy will be playing in that World Cup.

Because Bob Bradley is a racist and a nepotist.

[Stan Collins]

I look at it the other way round, he did the right journalistic research (interviewing the people who should know--I mean, he's not going to spend collective hours on the internet parsing the terminology the way BS has) and they gave him the wrong answer.

--

Anyways, to lighten the mood:


The concept of national team eligibility continues to elude some fans. Take this exchange, for example, on TalkSPORT’s Scottish phone-in when goalkeeper Antii Niemi still played for Hearts (borrowed from Jason Burt’s “The Sweeper” column in The Independent, 1 January 2003):

Caller: I'm a Hearts fan and, fair enough, Stephen Pressley gets a game for Scotland but what I can't understand is why [national coach Berti] Vogts never picks Antii Niemi.

Host (former footballer Arthur Albiston): Eh? Sorry?

Caller: Why does he never pick Antii Niemi for Scotland?

Host: It's because he's Finnish.

Caller: What?

Host: Antii Niemi is Finnish.

By now enraged caller: He's not Finnish! He's only 28!

[superdave]

2 problems with this. First, there is no way that Egypt would be able to get to the Court of Arbitration in time for it to matter in terms of the ACN.
Yeah, probably. :D I think it was in this thread that they'd get the 3 points, but it would take a long time.

As a more practical matter, WCQs are where it would matter.

Second, am I wrong in believing that at the time that the rule was written, it was made to apply retroactively? (meaning players who had already technically "chosen" a country by playing for them under the previous RULE, but were still then currently under the 21 age limit were allowed to go back and change). If that is the case, FIFA could simply go back in, adjust the rule with retroactive effect again, stating that the rule had been meant to apply to games that are qualifiers or actual tournament games, and they are adjusting it to further that intent.
Right, FIFA could change the rules and make it so that Adu could switch. Hell, they could change the rules so that Beckham solves the US' problem at right mid. But that's never been the point. People are saying Adu can play for Ghana without changing the rules.

[tab5g]

Grant still did a piss poor job of reporting even if he did allegedly stumble to the correct answer.

I'm not sure how this was a poor effort by Wahl. He got an answer. It looks to be the "right" answer in Fifa's opinion. If readers disagree with how Fifa interprets their own rules, that's certainly the readers' choice, but that doesn't make Wahl only a lucky or "stumblingly" correct reporter.


John Schumacher came to his conclusion by misinterpreting the rules he cited and Grant never examined the cited sources.

right. Wahl could have farther examined the cited sources, and he could have found that what Schumacher was stating did not align with the written Fifa statutues/circulars.

but the fact of the matter is that Fifa's "misinterpretation" of their own rules actually is in reality the correct "interpretation" and the one that should be reported -- as was done by Wahl.


Adu is allegedly able to play for Ghana not because of the rules that Grant and John cited but because FIFA has allegedly decided to change the rules. There was a good story there that Grant ignored, maybe he'll look into it now and get it right.

it's a "good story" for about 15-20 people in these threads who care this much about a case that will likely never come to pass.

should Adu actually wind up playing for Ghana, I'm hoping Wahl or somebody would do a full piece on how Fifa's interpretation/application goes against the written Fifa regulations, but up until that point, I'm not sure there's a "story" that's worth reporting.

the idea of Adu playing for Ghana is certainly hypothetical. if it happens, i'm guessing we can see more coverage/discussion of this. but i can understand why SI might not want to dive into a full investigation of this BS fetish at this point.

[NMMatt]

Basically this won't be resolved definitively until Freddy gets capped in WCQ. We've known that for some time.

[tab5g]

People are saying Adu can play for Ghana without changing the rules.

that's what you're hearing? i don't recall anyone saying that. maybe they have tried to make that point and I've missed it.

everything i've seen is that people believe Fifa can (re-)interpret or re-write their own regulations.

edit: as Parmigiano notes in post #91, the interpretation Fifa has given seems to be a plausible one (although it wouldn't match up with how you would interpret Article 15, Sec 3 (a) of the statutes).

[onefineesq]

(snip)
Right, FIFA could change the rules and make it so that Adu could switch. Hell, they could change the rules so that Beckham solves the US' problem at right mid. But that's never been the point. People are saying Adu can play for Ghana without changing the rules. Even as an attorney, I'm gonna stay away from being definitive on this one. When deciding what is "plain language" and what is not, it's all in the eye of the beholder. personally, i think that the language is plain. however, the decision on what is plain is going to be up to other people who look at it and may have a totally different theory about it. I don't want to start a fight with everyone in this thread, but there were tons of "plain language" laws (in my opinion) that were totally shredded by courts immediately after Reconstruction and the first 60 years of the last century concerning the former slaves. Why were they not seen as plain language? Because the white majority (mainly in the south) simply didn't like the results of the plain language readings. It could easily apply here, without a changing of the rule. People might see what THEY think is unfair treatment (remember that the rule was meant to protect youngsters who got quickly capped at a very young age and then dumped on a scrap heap), and rule based upon what they believe is the fair result, since they don't like the plain language reading. As my Constitutional Law teacher repeated ad nauseum in my first semester of law school ........... "what is the law? the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is."

[Parmigiano]

I posted this in the last thread, not realizing you had made a new thread too...

No, and I'll tell you. Because Articles 3 and 5 of the FIFA Statutes make it clear that an "A" international match can be EITHER a friendly OR a match in an officla competition:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/fifa%5fstatutes%5f0719%5fen%5f14479.pdf

Therefore, it's up to FIFA to decide how to interpret the passage in Article 15, Sec 3 (a) of the statutes, the one that speaks of a player not having appeared in an "A" match. It doesn't say in writing whether that A match needs to be an official match or not. Hence, the ambiguity, which my source acknowledged yet was also adamant in repeating that the FIFA legal department had advised him that the A match in question needed to be one in an officlal competition.

I agree it's a little confusing. The rule is written in a slightly vague way, that is for sure, but FIFA is saying through at least two source (mine and Wahl's) that the A match in question has to be in an official competition.

One can choose not to believe them, and my guy does say it's ultimately up to the Status Committee. But he was pretty adamant, and I don't see why he should be unless he knows what he's talking about.

I choose to believe him rather than some posters here.

[dsp87260]

that's what you're hearing? i don't recall anyone saying that. maybe they have tried to make that point and I've missed it.

everything i've seen is that people believe Fifa can re-interpret or re-write their own regulations.

It's the "re-interpret" part....that's a bunch of BS. Freddy is cap-tied per the written rules. If FIFA were to allow him to switch without changing the rules as written first, they would be doing nothing more than ignoring their own rules (this "re-interpreting" stuff doesn't fly, the rules are clear).

That's what we're (I'm) arguing....the rules are not vague or ambiguous...they are crystal clear. Any "interpretation" other than Freddy is cap-tied is either a misreading of the rules or a flat-out ignoring of them (no matter how they try to spin it) unless they re-write the rules first. Also, notice as said before that the definitive authority (the committee responsible for making the decision) has not said anything yet. IMO these comments are all form people who are misreading the rules in some cases or giving duplicitous answers that will shut people up for now and still keeps their options open (FIFA's, not Freddy's) in other cases.

[dsp87260]

No, and I'll tell you. Because Articles 3 and 5 of the FIFA Statutes make it clear that an "A" international match can be EITHER a friendly OR a match in an officla competition:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/fifa%5fstatutes%5f0719%5fen%5f14479.pdf

Therefore, it's up to FIFA to decide how to interpret the passage in Article 15, Sec 3 (a) of the statutes, the one that speaks of a player not having appeared in an "A" match. It doesn't say in writing whether that A match needs to be an official match or not. Hence, the ambiguity, which my source acknowledged yet was also adamant in repeating that the FIFA legal department had advised him that the A match in question needed to be one in an officlal competition.

I agree it's a little confusing. The rule is written in a slightly vague way, that is for sure, but FIFA is saying through at least two source (mine and Wahl's) that the A match in question has to be in an official competition.

One can choose not to believe them, and my guy does say it's ultimately up to the Status Committee. But he was pretty adamant, and I don't see why he should be unless he knows what he's talking about.

I choose to believe him rather than some posters here.

If the Canada friendly was an A International (it was, as they acknowledge) then Freddy is cap-tied. The rules are clear. There is no ambiguity.

No one is saying they can't ignore the rule if that's what they decide, but all it is is spin if they say that they are doing anything else. Your guy mentioned the legal department....notice how all the language he used is crouched in ways that allow FIFA to decide whatever they want while giving the "diplomatic" response that Freddy has options (like Gulati did). The rules say Freddy is cap-tied...they are obviously open to the idea of ignoring their rules if they feel they need to.

[MichaelMc]

I'm not sure how this was a poor effort by Wahl. He got an answer. It looks to be the "right" answer in Fifa's opinion. If readers disagree with how Fifa interprets their own rules, that's certainly the readers' choice, but that doesn't make Wahl only a lucky or "stumblingly" correct reporter.This isn't an interpretation of the rules, it's a clear change to the written rules.

Grant could write a match report with the wrong lineup, and wrong goal scorer, but the correct result and no one would say that it was a well written article. This is the same thing.

right. Wahl could have farther examined the cited sources, and he could have found that what Schumacher was stating did not align with the written Fifa statutues/circulars.

but the fact of the matter is that Fifa's "misinterpretation" of their own rules actually is in reality the correct "interpretation" and the one that should be reported -- as was done by Wahl.No that's lazy. The conflict between the written rules and FIFA's conclusion should be mentioned in the story. It's a critical part and it's lazy to gloss over it and act like it never happened.

the idea of Adu playing for Ghana is certainly hypothetical. if it happens, i'm guessing we can see more coverage/discussion of this. but i can understand why SI might not want to dive into a full investigation of this BS fetish at this point.Then Grant shouldn't have bothered with story because at best we are left with Parm's source saying that "the final word on these questions rests with FIFA's Players' Status Committee".

All we've learned is that nothing is going to be decided, regardless of the rules or what any other source says, until FIFA's Players' Status Committee makes a ruling.

Adu isn't free or cap-tied until FIFA's Players' Status Committee makes their decision.

[ironduke2010]

...

All we've learned is that nothing is going to be decided, regardless of the rules or what any other source says, until FIFA's Players' Status Committee makes a ruling.

Adu isn't free or cap-tied until FIFA's Players' Status Committee makes their decision.

well, we also know that none of this matters a whit unless adu tries to play for ghana before he turns 21. until then, this is really just bs fun.

[Deep Wilcox]

You are still the fool because you don't understand the difference between FIFA allegedly deciding to change their clearly written rules and your incorrect claim that the rules are ambiguous. We are right and you are wrong.

Yes, you are clearly RIGHT!!!! Except for that little detail of Freddy being cap-tied and all. But other than that you are R-I-G-H-T!!!:D

[dsp87260]

Yes, you are clearly RIGHT!!!! Except for that little detail of Freddy being cap-tied and all. But other than that you are R-I-G-H-T!!!:D

Adu is cap-tied per the written rules (so yes, he's/we're right)....if they decide he's not, then they are not following the written rules (as they are written right now).

Oh, and MichaelMC...I didn't see anything to suggest they have changed the rules or are going to change the rules...only that they are not necessarily going to follow them and therefore should change them.

[tab5g]

The rules say Freddy is cap-tied...they are obviously open to the idea of ignoring their rules if they feel they need to.

the rules (as you and superdave and others read/interpret them) say Adu is cap-tied.

FIFA disagrees with your reading/interpretation. (even though there's been no ruling on this as this is just a stance offered by some Fifa reps at this point and there is no "Adu case" before Fifa, there are only questions in to Wahl's SI mailbag or a contact a BS user has at Fifa. and if a case does go before FIFA's Players' Status Committee, certainly the words of these reps -- one "in theory" to Wahl, and the other off the record to Parmigiano -- won't matter to the FIFA's Players' Status Committee).

as much as i want to say that you all are reading the rules correctly and your interpretation is the proper one (or the one that matters), i know that that's not really the case.

just because you all are so set in your minds (and you might and probably do have some very good reasons for thinking as you do -- it's written right there) that Adu is or should be cap-tied to the US, your reading of the statutes and circulars doesn't much matter.

and as long as Adu never tries to play for Ghana, none of this matters anyway.

there's no reason for Fifa to make a ruling on this. there's no case before them. there are only questions from an SI journalist and some very interested BS users.

if Ghana wants to register Adu, then I'm sure FIFA's Players' Status Committee can rule on it. until then, this discussion really has no right or wrong answer.

[MichaelMc]

Yes, you are clearly RIGHT!!!! Except for that little detail of Freddy being cap-tied and all. But other than that you are R-I-G-H-T!!!:DReading comprehension is not your friend.

You missed the part about FIFA being able to change their rules whenever they want.

[ThreeApples]

I wouldn't be 100% sure. Let's say Ghana plays Adu in the ACofN against, say, Egypt. (I have no idea if Egypt is in it or in Ghana's group. Just play along.) If Ghana wins, Egypt would protest that Ghana used an ineligble player.This can't happen. For Adu to be called up by Ghana, he first would have to make a formal request in writing for a one-time-switch, and that request would have to be granted by FIFA. It would all be adjudicated before he ever played in a game. Regardless of anybody's interpretation of the rules, Ghana can't just call him up and put him in a game as things stand right now.