Rumor: MEXICO out of the playoff due to ineligible player? [update: nope, they're fine]

New to this site.

I went through all this thread, and no one has arised the possibility of Panama (or for that mattter NZ) to bring the matter of "Chaco" Gimenez elegibility to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, a course of action codified in art. 13 of WC2014 Regulations.

I wonder why neither Panama nor NZ have tried to go that route.

 

Because, in all of sports, FIFA has the strongest rules against switching nationalities.

 

There is a need for a formal complaint to FIFA disciplinary committee, an action that could be done at any time (1 hr deadline does not apply, see Zambia v Sudan), by either Panama or NZ federation.

As a matter of fact, Honduras, USA and Costa Rica are entitled to make complaints (no net gain in terms of points).

FIFA may be interested in sweeping this under the rug with technicisms. To the enquiry of Panama, they just issued a media release, saying that they could not answer the question. (Neither "no" nor "yes").

Unfortunately, before presenting the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, all forms of appeal to FIFA should be exhausted.

 

Seems this thread is already dead.

Nevertheless, I would say that Panama was given a raw deal by FIFA, by dismissing the case without a clear reasoning, specially with the minimum prize money of $8 million dollars for the 32 finalists.

About Argentina being a guest in Conmebol U20 tournament, nobody here mentioned the case of Chile in 1987 and Colombia in 2011, both hosted the WC U20 and they also played the Conmebol U20 in the mentioned years.

Furthermore, the regulations of the Conmebol U20 tournament of 2011, held in Peru, does not say a word about a guest participant. It clearly states that every team are competitors in equal footing, and that the tournament award 4 places to the FIFA Youth World Cup.

It looks that the "guest" argument does not hold.

Regarding the deadline argument, there is a precedent involving a match that Zambia lost to Sudan, played in July 2, 2012, where Sudan fielded an ineligible player. Zambia filed a complaint 2 weeks after the match to the Disciplinary Committee (art. 42 of FIFA disciplinary code allows a deadline of 2 years to denounce such issues), which it found in favor of Zambia, awarding them the match and the points.

Even more, the Disciplinary Committee can receive complaints from anyone (cf. art. 108 of FIFA disciplinary code) regarding ineligible players. So, in theory, a newspaper in Panama could try to advance the issue.

 

It's insane bc Tunisia basically threw caution to the wind and issued all sorts of complaints short of questioning Samuel Eto'o's status as a Cameroonian. By that I mean that they might as well have tried that with the feasibility of the complaints that they actually did make. They questioned the status of players who'd been with Cameroon since before 2010.

 

Ok, add the Peru 2005 U17 WC, when the Inca team also competed in the Southamerican qualification of that year held in Venezuela, without anything else than the WC berth in dispute. Ecuador held the U17 WC in 1995, but declined to be at the Southamerican qualifiers in Peru (relations between those two countries were in a very tense moment).
Unfortunely, the regulations for the 2011 tournament is the only document available online for consultations. I know it was used also for Olympic qualification, Curiously, no mention of the berths for the Olympics appear on it.
If a copy of the regulations of the 2001 tournament exist, that would provide insight about the nature of the matches that Argentina played in it. Even the 2005 regulation of the U17 Southamerica qualification tournament could be useful as a very similar case.
Until someone lodge a written complaint to the Disciplinary Committee of FIFA regarding the eligibilty of Chaco, this would not be clarified by FIFA and a result obtained by cheating would continue to stand.