You trying to promote Ireland picking English players on the grandparent rules? you're in the wrong forum . Quote from McAteer. The guy who had one irish grandparent and had never set foot in Ireland. Classic !
I agree with the comments on the end of the video. The personal choice should be for the right reasons.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-s-disappointing-result-against-Scotland.html It seems MON is trying to speed up Grealish's decision. He's trying to convince the Grealish camp he will get more Caps with Ireland line, pretty predictable to be honest which I hope he doesnt fall for as his ceiling could be big and could still make big strides with England in the future.
Here is a list of English players who also qualify for Jamaica. The list is far from exhaustive (it is missing Ruben Loftus-Cheek, for example), but it is something. Few of these players will ever represent Jamaica (most would rather hold out for England even in the absence of a clear path into the national side), though the Jamaicans will communicate with some of them and possibly end up with a handful way down the line. Some of the bigger names on the list include Jason Puncheon, Nathan Dyer, Nathan Redmond, and Wayne Routledge. http://thehomeofcaribbeanfootball.com/2014/05/16/variety-list-of-potential-jamaican-internationals/
How sure are you Lewis Baker qualifies? Mainly interested as I'm quite keen on this sort of thing but have never twigged that he has Jamaican eligibility.
Jamaica are another team who have picked players who werent eligible for them. FIFA doesnt even do proper background checks .
I wonder what people like Gareth Southgate thinks of reports today about Jack Grealish being found unconscious in the street at 8.00 in the morning, the worse for drink (and whatever).
I asked him. 539139366690754560 is not a valid tweet id That is also how I know about Demarai Gray, Jordan Cousins, Isaiah Brown, and many of the other names on that list - plenty of players are open about their heritage when asked about it and many (ex: Nathan Dyer, Jermaine Anderson, Danny Simpson, etc) reveal it without ever being asked. The list was years in the making (3 years, to be more exact) precisely because of the time needed to vet the names. I'm certain the list isn't perfect, but I'm about 95% sure about the Jamaican background of the names that are up there now. There are many more names I have on record as possibly being Jamaica-eligible. These include Andre Gray, Kadeem Harris, Jake Livermore and Tom Huddlestone. They're not on this list because I haven't been able to confirm their heritage. That happened once (Tyrone Mears) and won't happen again. Mears was capped before receiving his passport, since FIFA doesn't require one for friendlies (Mears appeared in a friendly). JFF policy since then has been to hold off on capping players for any match until their backgrounds can be proven and they have passports in hand. FIFA has also become a little stricter on this overall in recent years, which will further ensure that Mears was a one-time mistake.
It helps players to be open about their heritage because it makes England call-ups more likely. You often hear players talking about who they're eligible for in the run up to a England squad decision. Pretty sure Ravel Morrison is eligible for Jamaica too is he not?
True. While this happens less often than you'd think (most of the players don't wear their Jamaican roots on their sleeves), it definitely is an effective strategy. Danny Rose is a great example of this. His Jamaican heritage has been known to Jamaican fans for years but Rose never really mentioned it in the media before earlier this year. He played the Jamaica card in the run-up to England's March games and it very nearly worked. Yes. That's another player who used the Jamaica card effectively to force England consideration. In November 2012, he got on twitter and said he was thinking about playing for Jamaica. At that point, he hadn't represented England for nearly three years - he had last been capped at the U-18 level in 2010. Less than a year after making this statement, Ravel was an England U-21. Of course he's followed that up by completely falling off the wagon, so to speak, and essentially being written off by two major clubs and given up on by multiple managers. It will be interesting to see where he goes from here. 18 months ago I'd say Ravel had some pretty strong England chances, but he has managed to almost single handedly decimate those chances in that time span. I'm not even sure how much of an asset he'd be to Jamaica right now given his sheer dysfunction off the pitch.
Did Baker suggest how far back his Jamaican lineage goes though? He may not actually be eligible despite having Jamaican heritage. Morrison wasn't called up for the U21s cause he mentioned being Jamaican. It was because he started to get gametime and actually perform.
Also England wanted/tried to call him up at U19 level a few times but it was eventually agreed with his club to leave him out for a while so he could focus on getting back on track at club level. Noel Blake mentioned it a few times.
Possible, but unlikely. Jamaicans largely came to England en-masse during the middle of the twentieth century (50s and 60s, and continuing after that). Players who are coming of age now are generally the grandchildren of these migrants - very few of the great-grand children are old enough to be playing football at a senior level. We just haven't been in England long enough, for the most part. Baker most likely qualifies through a paternal grandparent or two. That is also the case with Demarai Gray, Jordan Cousins, and many others. There are a handful that may have closer ties (ex: a Jamaican father who arrived in the eighties or something), but very few are going to be more distant than a grandparent. The English-Jamaican diaspora isn't old enough for that yet, though it will probably be old enough 10-15 years from now. Perhaps that is a more accurate explanation. Either way, the point was to note that the dual-nationality card has been a tool used (usually unsuccessfully) by players in the past who are keen on forcing their way into the England setup.
I think if both your parents are Jamaican then fair enough but grandparents is stretching it too far. It just becomes an England B Team.
CCV made this journalists Team of The Tournament at the u20 World Cup http://outsideoftheboot.com/2015/06/23/u20-world-cup-team-of-the-tournament/ Performed really well throughout and obviously looked one of the best players despite his age, shame on his penalty miss though. @THFCacademy also made this video of his FAYC performance against Chelsea for those who care to watch.
Maybe if you live only with that one parent. But if you have parents from two different countries then how can you choose one over the other?
My mother is English born and raised, but Jamaican by blood. My father is from St. Vincent and the Grenadines. I was born and raised in the USA. I identify as a Jamaican, largely because of my maternal grandparents (with whom I was very close as a child). I know several other people with backgrounds similar to mine who identify more closely with their English or American roots than their Jamaican ones (ex: Danny Rose or Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain), or identify with other Caribbean roots more than their Jamaican ones (ex: Hull's Calaum Jahrahldo-Martin). There are some who don't identify more with one of their nationalities than their others. This is going to vary by person and by experience, but all of those variations are valid. I disagree wholeheartedly that "grandparents is too far" - that relationship is nowhere near distant enough to warrant such dismissal. Many people grow up with their grandparents and are more than close enough to them to form significant ties to whichever culture they come from. This is aside from the fact that one's grandparents together can account for half of one's blood, which is an important factor in this (roots do matter). Your experiences will be key in the determination. I have four nationalities to which I can lay a legitimate claim. I'm closer to Jamaica than the others because of the specific way I was raised (a way that kept me close to my Jamaican roots). As noted earlier, many with different experiences are closer to England or the USA or even other Caribbean islands and don't feel very culturally Jamaican despite their blood links. When you live in a world filled with people with legacies defined by migration and family histories crossing oceans and spanning multiple continents, things get complicated. Simply saying "grandparents too far" isn't going to work for them and will likely directly contradict many of their experiences.
I think that's looking at it backwards. The burden isn't on FIFA to prove a link it sufficiently distant so they can justify dismissing it, it's on the player to prove it's sufficiently close so that they should be allowed to represent that country. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the overwhelming majority of people would not reasonably identify based on their grandparent's nationality over their own or one of their parents'. It makes sense that you shouldn't be able to qualify through a grandparent, especially given how the rule has been abused. And it's not like someone can't become a naturalized citizen if they really wanted to.
That's where I disagree. I believe that it is widely considered reasonable to make an identification upon the basis of a grandparent's nationality and to give said identification significant weight. This is a concept widely recognized in international law, with the vast majority of nations allowing entitlement to full citizenship rights or, at the very least, an easier path to citizenship combined favorable rights relating to residency/work to those who can prove a link through a grandparent (the UK and USA are among these nations). FIFA is following a standard that most nations abide by and that has pretty much become a norm in the realm of international law. I agree that the line must be drawn somewhere, but it has already been clearly drawn at the grandparent level. That is a link that has long been widely recognized by most of the international community to be "sufficiently close" to warrant a host of rights (usually citizenship, often at least work permit/residency) not granted to those who lack said links. A player doesn't need to prove that a grandparent link is "sufficiently close" because it has already been widely accepted (both inside and outside the laws of the game) that it is. It actually doesn't. That would break from international legal norms that govern in the majority of nations who do tend to allow citizenship rights to those who can prove links via a grandparent. Who abused the rule? It is much easier for a professional footballer to become a naturalized citizen in a large, somewhat affluent nation with a well-paying fully professional league than it is to do so in a nation like Jamaica (small, poor, no professional league). Your idea sounds nice on paper, but in practice it would simply enhance an unfair advantage that larger, wealthier nations already have over their smaller, less affluent counterparts. Nations like the USA, Spain, Qatar, and Canada already have the advantage of maintaining stable, well-paying professional leagues through which they can boost their player pools via naturalization (read: they can afford to attract decent players to their leagues in their prime and keep them in said leagues long enough [5 years] for them to qualify). Poorer nations like Jamaica and Nigeria don't have this advantage, but in the current environment they can at least draw on their diasporas to boost their player pools. Under your proposed scenario, those poorer nations would have a harder time drawing from their diasporas, but the larger more affluent nations would still have the same advantage with regard to naturalization. This would enhance the disparity. Said larger/more affluent nations would also maintain what I call their "destination advantage": the fact that more people from around the world are drawn to their shores, allowing their player pool to expand more rapidly. This is how the USA is able to get an Aron Johansson (born in the USA to foreign parents who had migrated there briefly, but not actually ever raised in the USA), or England a Berahino, Sterling, or Zaha (all foreign born but migrated young). These nations can rely not only on their own internal growth to expand their pool of potential players, but can expect to drawn on other pools (via migration) to augment what they already have. Nations like Iceland, Jamaica, and Burundi, on the other hand, have fewer people coming to their shores and must therefore rely more heavily on what is born domestically. They're not likely to get boosts to their player pools via short-term migrants like the Johanssons or more permanent arrivals like the Berahinos or Sterlings (who come for economic opportunities that these poorer/smaller nations simply can't offer). Is that fair? No, but it is a reality that probably won't ever change. Allowing smaller and/or poorer nations known for heavy emigration (ex: Algeria, Jamaica, Nigeria, etc) deeper reach into their diasporas helps them to counter this effect somewhat, since they'll never have the financial clout to match the nations with the destination advantage. Under your scenario, these smaller and/or poorer nations would be even more disadvantaged than they are now. They would continue to deal with mass emigration, but would have a harder time drawing from those diasporas who have emigrated. Wealthier nations would maintain their destination advantage (at the expense of the aforementioned poorer/smaller nations, from whom the migrants will be sourced) while also maintaining their naturalization advantage via their large, stable professional leagues. If I identified with a nation with a "destination advantage", perhaps I too wouldn't mind this state of affairs. I don't, so I do.