Player Eligibility and Switching National Teams: Case Studies & General Discussion

I am not talking about the Gulf Cup. I am talking about how the African Cup occurs every two years as compared to the Euro which is different yet is still applied the same.

But I just look at it simple. If it is not a friendly it should be cap-tying.

 

You literally wrote:

My response referenced what I assumed you meant in writing "Golf Cup" and for the African Cup of Nations.

I understand your opinion and you got mine. Nations League matches are basically a direct replacement for friendlies, and has as much importance as a friendly, so in no way shape or form be cap-tying.

 

Ah,Typo. The GOLD CUP. Thanks for mentioning.


They are not friendlies if they are part of a competition and play by official match rules like three subs limitations.

You want them to be in a special category that does not exist which is fine but not applicable.

 

Special like creation of a new "league" out of absolutely nothing special? Anyway, you obviously get my point.

 

I get your point of course.

Just don't believe that it will be considered anything but a competitive match. Which is cap-tying.

But FIFA has surprised me before.

 

Well use the example of the Arabian Gulf Cup, which I thought had mentioned, as an example as to competitive match that uses competitive rules, yet is not cap-tying.

 

I am not at all certain I would tbh. Regardless of how you view those matches they where taken seriously by the teams that played them. That was apparent from what took place on the pitches, what the managers/players have said and what regulations where used. The prize money, potential ranking points and chance of a spot at the Euros all added up to make it a prize worth chasing instead of being the dull affairs that friendlies usually are.

I'm not sure they should have the same weight as normal competitive matches but they sure are closer to that than to friendlies and as those are the only two options available I'm fine with them being considered as competitive matches.

Of all my possible concerns about this competition this one is way down the list for me. So far down to really not be a concern at all even.

 

But that's a poor argument. Before the NL matches were even played CONCACAF had already approved and planned for their version, AFC was in serious discussion about starting a version and FIFA was having a good long look at making a global one too.
The only ones that haven't shown any interest are CONMEBOL and OFC but it would be pretty much redundant for both (CONMEBOL especially with its 18 rounds of WC qualifiers already fill up most of the dates in the match calendar).

 

I'm just not a real fan of country swapping. I agree with you about people putting pressure on very young players so I wouldn't necessarily go back to using friendlies as a cap tie, but I think by the time a professional player with dual nationality is 21 (or maybe 23) he should nail his colours to his mast and pick and stick with a country. I don't have an opinion on nation's league matches being used to tie a player, but I think if it becomes a thing most confederations have it should.

 

Please. You and I know these matches are not close to the same weight as normal competitive matches in qualifying or tournaments. There is very little to gain and even less to lose, where the only goal you are playing for is your position in seeding for actual qualifying, and a potential "second chance" match in case you screw up qualifying. How does that compare?

Your smallest concern for you is my absolute largest concern. Why, because you are starting to see many example of players who are getting called up earlier than ever just to lock them in. I'm just glad that FIFA’s stakeholders committee is studying a proposal to make the rules more flexible in such cases where a young player is called up just to be locked in. That should never happen.

 

Watched beyond plenty. Still does not chance that it was UEFA's idea to end the ‘meaningless friendly’ and nothing more.

I am totally not surprised that you think they should be cap-tying. Your country is the biggest culprit of them all based on their actions during this past Nations Leagues group matches. As I argued above, I believe they should not be, and only can hope they are not once FIFA makes that decision.

 

I'll agree with you that if it becomes a thing that most Confederations have it, then it should only then be considered possibly cap-tying.

 

As I said before, you might not think much of them but the teams certainly did. The attitude, effort and team selection was different from how teams/players usually treat friendlies and the fans noticed the difference, the NL was a lot more successful than I expected.

Can't say I've seen that enough to consider it a problem. And while I might be for a bit more flexibility for players that want to change national teams after a call-up I would in general be for being stricter on what countries a person could represent at all.

 

Today, Portugal draw 0-0 with Ukraine in Lisbon in their first match of the Euro qualifiers. The issue here is that Ukraine used a Brazilian player called Junior Moraes, which has played in Ukraine since summer 2012, EXCEPT for a period in the first semester of 2017, where he was registered as a loan to a team in the Chinese super league.

Now, I recall that a player needs to be registered during five continuous years in an association to become able to switch to a different association. Junior Moraes lacked half a year to fulfill this requirement.

Would Portugal be aware of this? Could they get the points awarded, even if the protest is filed after the next 24 hours? Or would FIFA declare that a short loan stint does not break the five-year continuity?

This could the equivalent in UEFA of the Nelson Cabrera affair two years ago in CONMEBOL

 

AFAIK the 5 year rule is about residency. For example, a player that resides in country A can be registered with a club in country B. As long as the player meets the residency requirements in country A he'll become eligible after five continuous years (from his 18th birthday, so at the earliest when he turns 23). In Junior Moraes's case you'd have to check if he fell short of the residency requirements or not.

 

The rule reads:

The player must have "lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant association."

FIFA has issued waivers on these types of cases before where it doesn't violate the spirit of the statute, even if not fulfilling the letter of the law. Most cases have involved players under the age of 23 who have lived most of their lives in the new country.

This looks like a situation where there isn't much of a violation and likely Ukraine had already cleared it with FIFA.

 

https://apnews.com/44c5aba4982142988b16b9335ed52b7b

 

Source. This soccerway entry: https://us.soccerway.com/players/aluisio-chaves-ribeiro-moraes-junior/9372/
Also his wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Júnior_Moraes

Is any example available of another player who received such waiver? I suppose the argument in favor of Moraes is that it was a short stint and he returned straight back to Ukraine.
But there is also the issue about receiving his Ukranian citizenship just days (13, according to his Wikipedia entry) before his debut against Portugal. To my best of knowledge, that item is required before requesting a switch of association, and there is a period of weeks before such a request could be cleared by FIFA.
Then again, FIFA could be speedy for big associations, not such treatment for small ones (Cape Verde, Burundi; Bahamas, etc.)

 

Then again, maybe I started something.

 

Zelalem ... according to this eligibility expert:

"Several players have applied to Fifa for an exemption to Article 7, including German-born United States midfielder Gedion Zelalem just this year. Fifa decide on exemptions on a case-by-case basis..."

Prove it, please.

 

Gedion Zelalem.

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015...sent-us-national-team-added-us-u-20-world-cup

Until he was granted this, we didn't even know there was a way to get a waiver of the rule. There is an article out there somewhere, that I can't find right now, that discusses how many of these waivers FIFA approves annually and a bunch of them were for the US and Australia (which make sense because any naturalized youth player is likely to need the waiver).

 

About the latter, I was just a tongue-in-cheek way to express my surprise about the news.
But if you are interested, I also send this tweet about the same time I posted her my doubts about Junior Moraes. If this is how it started, I do not know. Maybe there was another informed person in the Portuguese FA who also noted as me this issue. Unfortunately for Panama in 2013, there was no such geek to keep track of these things.

Zelalem seems to be a very special case because he received a waiver to represent USA underage teams (U20, U23) where there is no way to wait for the five year period to become eligible for those teams. BUT the interesting point here is that he has not played for the full "A" team yet. Could be because he has to endure a five year period from the moment he got US citizenship? Now that is an interesting issue to be clarified.

Regarding Junior Moraes, I think Portugal and Luxemburg would aggressively press the case against such waiver having being granted if that was the case.