Starts: 📝 TEAM NEWS | One change for Latics at Preston today as Kal Naismith replaces the injured @Pilkington_11 Places on the bench for @JoeWilliams0812 and @KRFMoore!#wafc 🔵⚪️💚— Wigan Athletic (@LaticsOfficial) August 10, 2019
Wigan's right side is bad. Robinson may be nothing extraordinary, but Byrne and Kipre are poor. 3-0 to Preston.
OK then.. as Jens Cajuste is a US citizen who is not eligible for the USMNT. It appears as if Alfredo Morales doesn't meet the criteria as well. Can someone tell me how Antonee Robinson is eligibe for the USMNT? Here is the rule which has been in place for well over a decade.
Agreed. What could possibly compel any US fan into trying to expel as many brown dual nationals as possible from the national team? It’s not cool.
If US Soccer dropped the ball on this, I don't even know what to say. I guess I just hope we don't get suspended, or there's an answer we don't know about?
That's one way to interpret what he wrote. Another way to interpret it is to check on Mexican NT players who naturalized from other countries.
That's fine. I can't speak for @DHC1, but I doubt he meant for you to dig up info to try and get rid of any Mexican-Americans.
Wow. Morales played one game in the 2015 Gold Cup. Since we didn't finish in the top three, I guess we wouldn't lose anything, no?
They tried to write the rules in a fair way and there are very few who don't qualify under at least one of those provisions, since most countries don't go back further than grandparents to grant citizenship. It's more problematic with naturalized players (and in this case, naturalized parents) who may move around or not easily qualify for citizenship. The old rule used to be, "Got a passport? You're in."
I guess, though it's pretty quirky. For instance, under those rules, Kik Pierie is US eligible, but younger bros Stijn and Take would not be. And, obviously, any number of USMNTers of old would not have made the cut. Wonder what they do about the countries-formerly-known-as-Yugoslavia, or other geographic changes. Guess I'll have to look close at the rules.
That was under the rule that required someone receiving a new citizenship to live 5 years in the country after turning 18. There are a lot of waivers for that one for players who haven't reached 23 yet.
In the Morales thread, I found a ruling from CAS that says that Para. 6 only applies to those 7 countries that have more than one citizenship (US, UK, China, etc.) It shouldn't apply to those countries that were part of Yugoslavia. The Pieries aren't a good example because Stijn & Take aren't US citizens anyway. A better example is Desevio Payne. His father naturalized to the US & his mother is Dutch. His younger brothers are US citizens, but not eligible under that paragraph.
Freddy was living in the US, so he would qualify, though his eligibility came from the naturalization provision, not the one above. He started playing for the US in 2002; the updated provisions came into effect in 2004.
Yes - I should have added "if his folks had become US citizens while in Boston." Payne is the actual version of that. And a few former US players. But as far as the rest - I believe you and BS might be reading it wrong? (not sure, but it's possible - see below) https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/fif...players-who-have/1hndiedxd2d4h1jfved27pg4go#1 Article 6 applies ONLY to the 7 countries where there are "territory" teams (as well as or instead of "national" teams ie. Scotland vs. "Great Britain", American Samoa vs. USMNT.) THOSE are the 7 cases where a player or their parent/grandparent must live "on" the territory. (ie. you couldn't play for American Samoa if you only visited, not lived for 2 continuous years.) The next article (7) applies only to players who "assume a new nationality in order to play for a national team." It's not clear to me if this still is in reference to only the 7 countries with "multiple territory teams" or not, but I think maybe it is? (Why else us "territory" rather than "country" in the sentence?) Maybe Para 7 only applies to the 7 exceptions listed. ie. a naturalized citizen of the US could not choose to appear for American Samoa without living there 5 years, but still can play for the USMNT? Fifa lawyers will know better. Assuming a new nationality Article 7deals with players who assume a new nationality in order to play for a national team and it uses the mostly the same criteria as Article 6.1, with only item (d) differing. In Article 7, the condition in item (d) says that a player will be eligible to play for a representative team if he has "lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant association." Seems the question is did Robinson "assume a new nationality in order to play" for the USMNT.
I don't think that's how FIFA reads naturalization (I have yet to find a good definition of the term from FIFA), but Robinson was born a US citizen. Not sure how that would be considered a "new" nationality. The rules definitely aren't as clear as they could be, but I think Article 6 applies (absent some cross USA agreement with the other "American" FAs). Article 7 has been used against all countries, not just the 7. Remember, the rules were put into place to stop Qatar just naturalizing Brazilians (much like the Qatari handball team).
I for sure am no expert, but that article suggest 6 only applies to players with multiple options within their own "country" (the "7"). Anyway, I don't really know enough to wade into this debate (yet here I am!), but it seems a less-than-clear policy as I read the articles on it. Perhaps Fifa has a better idea what they are referring to. I think it's mostly citizenship-shopping - which guys like Robinson clearly are not doing (just country shopping.) Perhaps they grant waivers for those situations.
Yes, it primarily applies to that... a player with options of Guam or the US, but Antonee doesn't have connection to any of the FAs. How do the federations decide the "none of the above" category? A written agreement could take care of that (and maybe it has), but if you don't have an approved rule, seems you are stuck with the rules of 6.1.
Yeah. I don't know enough to know. And there is this "general principal" as well, which seems to apply to the Robinson's of the world... Principle of national team eligibility The general principle, in Article 5.1, states: "Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the association of that country."