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

Playing in friendlies, youth or senior team, don't stop you from being eligible for another country if you later obtain a new citizenship. Only *competitive* matches stop the process.

 

Playing a competitive youth international does make you ineligible to represent a country That you didn’t hold eligibility for at the time. Eg. Adama Traore represented Ivory Coast youth teams, then went on to live in Australia for the 5+ years but was not eligible to represent Australia because he had no connection to Australia at the time of representing the Ivory Coast youth teams. Thiago Motta must have had a connection to Italy (grandfather) at the time of playing youth football for Brazil.
So if Elkeson has actually played for the Brazil under 23 team in a competitive match, he can’t represent China without a Chinese parent or grandparent. If he hasn’t played youth football for Brazil then he is fine for China.

 

True, but there are no U23 competitive matches in South America.
At least not until next year.

 

Didn't Thiago Motta already have Italian citizenship by descent?

 

Under 23 (official matches) will cap tie you if you are only eligible to be a citizen of that country at the time. If you are a multiple citizen at the time you play in an official aged match you can switch one time before you play an official A level international. (unless of course they've changed it again since I last looked it up).

 

Yes, I know.
But when applied to the players being considered by the Chinese there were no South American U23 official matches so it is moot.

 

Could you clarify where does FIFA distinguish between official and unofficial youth matches?

The FIFA rule book for player eligibility says that all matches count when representing a national team, at all levels of football.

 

Yea but that only means matches that are sanctioned by FIFA (in some way). Matches that aren't simply don't exist in FIFA's considerations. It's just the same as when players normally representing Spain of France (or others) plays a game for Catalonia without getting themselves banned.

 

The key phrase is "in an official competition." An official competition is one that is sanctioned by FIFA or a confederation as an actual competition starting at U17 and that follows the standard laws of the game (primarily # of substitutions). There are many non-competitive tournaments that aren't FIFA events and aren't considered an official competition -- such as Toulon.

Official matches are any between official members of FIFA and that follow the laws. A match at Toulon would usually be official, but not inside a FIFA competition, so they are friendlies.

An unofficial match might be a closed door match or a scrimmage with unlimited substitutions. As long as the participants agree it isn't official, it isn't.

There is also an "in-between" category -- matches played by a guest team in an official FIFA competition. The guest teams at Copa America, for example, aren't subject to cap-tying rules in those matches, but the COMEBOL teams are. They are counted in the list of matches played and for caps and goals, but they are competitive for one team and not another.

 

@BostonRed , that must be it then.

I misread Article 5.2 and concluded that all games (unofficial, official, friendly, in-competition, etc) would be treated the same.

 

Almost forgot, a month ago L.Bailey committed his future as an international to Jamaica (after he was called up for their Gold Cup squad and his step-brother was invited to represent Jamaica in the Olympic qualis). Before Bailey joined Jamaica his adoptive father/agent used him as a bargaining chip during negotiations with the Jamaican FA. He claimed Bailey was (or would eventually be) eligible to play for England, Malta, Germany, Belgium, ... (probably I missed a few countries). Having played in the Gold Cup, those options are off the table, as he's cap-tied to Jamaica now.

 

The Wikipedia page is entertaining reading as it talks as much of his father's doings.

 

Andy Delort, who plays for Montpellier in Ligue 1 and with Algerian heritage, is in the squad and has already played in Algeria's first group match of African Cup of Nations, against Kenya. He played once for France U20 in a friendly. Not a problem in this.

But it happens that he also played for the French National Beach Soccer team in a qualifier for the 2009 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup. And there is the precedent of a player named Charly Moussono.

Moussono played for Cameroon beach soccer team in the 2006 FIFA Beach soccer WC, switching afterward to play for Gabon National soccer team, where he was a member of the squad in the 2012 African Cup of Nations. Later, he played against Niger in a qualifier for the 2014 WC, but following that, FIFA ruled him ineligible for Gabon, since they considered that his stint with the Cameroon Beach Soccer team in an official competition means that he was permanently tied to Cameroon.

This could complicate matters in AFCON if somebody acts on this information.

 

There's a bit of a storm going on over in the USMNT threads about the (in)eligibility of Jens Cajuste. His father is a naturalized US citizen and Jens wasn't born in the US & hasn't lived there before.

Here's the provision in question:



I'll admit I just assumed this Article was about dual nationals (after all, not many non-naturalized dual citizen players wouldn't qualify under these rules). But it seems that CAS has ruled it applies only to the 7 countries that have more than one FA sharing its nationality (US, UK, Denmark, China, France, Netherlands, NZ). (Article 6 was known as Article 16 at the time of the ruling).

https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/10_e._CAS_Irish_case.pdf

A distinction must be drawn between a player having a “shared nationality” that is a single nationality that entitles a player to represent two or more associations (article 16 of the 2009 Application Regulations) and a player having a “dual nationality” or several nationalities who can choose to play for one or the other national association according to his passports. This situation is not governed by Article 16, but by the general principle set forth by Article 15 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, a player having a dual nationality and fulfilling the objective requirements provided by Article 18 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes, since he never represented one of the national team for which he has the relevant nationality in an official competition at “A” International level, is eligible to play for another national team on account of the other nationality he has.

The debate is over several US citizens who have at least one naturalized parent, were born outside the US and have never lived in the US. Jens Cajuste, Antonee Robinson & Alfredo Morales seem to meet this definition. Desevio Payne has younger brothers who also would fall into this category (Desevio was born in the US). To not be eligible, generally a player would have been born outside the US & his parents (or grandparents) naturalized to US citizenship & passed it along without the player living in the US for 2 years.

USSF had told Cajuste he wasn't eligible, but has played both Morales & Robinson. Some posters claim that the clause doesn't apply to the US in any of these cases because it isn't a dispute between intra-US FAs. However, the USSF doesn't have any primacy of a claim to these players either.

Absent some agreement among the US FAs (US, USVI, PR, Guam, American Samoa), this provision applies as written to the US. Unless FIFA or CAS has ruled otherwise somewhere, it seems those players aren't eligible.

It's odd that Article 6 can limit some federations, but not others. It seems a heavier burden.

 

Ugh. That's an interpretation that I don't like. Seriously, though, doesn't the fact that these players already have multiple nationalities mean that they are eligible for all of the FAs? That's an easier and fairer interpretation IMO.

 

The problem is that because they don't meet the qualifications of Para. 6.1, they are "unmoored" -- they don't really qualify for any of the US FAs. This happens in the UK, too, because their rules are similar -- replace the residency with a similar education provision and you lock out players who naturalized into the UK as adults.

Brian Sciaretta, whose article drew a spotlight on this issue (though it could a couple of mentions in this thread re: Morales), is doing some deeper research it this. It seems odd the USSF considers Cajuste ineligible but Robinson eligible with almost the same set of circumstances.

 

To be frank, the US could pull a Bolivia and just forge ahead. It's not likely that any nation would care that much. In the worst case scenario it would mean a few years of litigation which would be useless to any FA trying to get a quick point or three.

 

Not sure what you mean tbh. Article 6 is the "nice" one, most dual nationalities would fall under Article 7 that requires 5 years after the age of 18.

* Cajuste, is that the one playing in Denmark? Wouldn't seem to be eligible at first glance but I lack information tbh.
* Morales would seem to be in the same situation, perhaps there is some US law about the status of military personnel that allows the father to count but I don't know.
* Robinson's wiki says his father is from the US and thus would be OK but wiki is notoriously unreliable for such info so...

The regulations about this is pretty archaic tbh and it's just not suited to the movements of families that takes place more frequently nowadays. I'd expect there to be changes but we'll likely have to wait 15-20 years for a generational change at FIFA/the federations for that to happen.

 

Huh? If reported I'd expect FIFA to make a decision within 1 or 2 months tbh. Taking it all the way to a CAS appeal would stretch that to a year or possibly a little longer but the initial punishment (if any) would stand along the way.

This isn't some exotic and never before seen clause, it is well known and well tested and the definitions and principles are well understood (by those that do sport legalese).

 

Article 7 can also be a bit of an interpretation nightmare. I assumed it was about "naturalization" -- taking on a new nationality that the player didn't possess prior to birth -- but I suppose it could also be read to apply to any player who decides to play for a different nationality that he also possesses. Most players are going to meet the provisions regardless, but naturalized players may not & we know FIFA grants waivers, at least for players who lived in the territory but not necessarily the "5 after 18."

For Morales, FIFA doesn't care about US law. He was born after his father was out of the military anyway.

According to Brian Sciaretta who interviewed Antonee, his father wasn't born in the US.

It seems the players are in the same boat regardless. There should be some consistency in eligibility interpretation.