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

And what about the players personal time and the cost his family had to pay, to have him play when he was a small child, as in great part of the initial formative lapse of time, it was his family whom incured in investments, not the local FA, whom only gets the players once they've proven themselves to be among the best in their generation. If the player at that moment hasn`t shown anything promising, they are simply discarded by the local FA's program, while if he does seem to have some potential, only then they start investing in him.

The other issue, is that whom has to make the biggest effort and sacrifices in order to progress as a player, is precisely the player, as he had to train, pass through injuries, sacrifice his time when he could be doing whatever else he would wish to do, maybe even sacrifice time with girlfriends, who knows ?. The boy, has given himself almost 100 % to the system, and who gets the best benefit from his sacrifices, is and will always be FA to whom he represents. Maybe without that player, the NT he represents, wouldn`t even achieve any of the excellent results that the whole youth program, expects to get. How much do you think the FA owes that boy.

Well, I believe that this whole issue is an issue of mutual give and take, by both parts the same. The FA, undoubtly gave lots of things to the boy, but the boy gave himself completely to the FA, in order to allow it achieve its goals with the program. And in lots of the cases, those players despite having the benefit to chose freely for whom to represent, at the end, most of the times they end representing in their adult life the team which saw them grow (as exactly the case of Ricardo did).

Anyhow, despite what I've said above, I think that a 6 month lapse-time, is not so long and also not so short, but a reasonable time, to have the required paperwork finished for a player who wants to switch sides, lapse of time that the player can't play for either side, would be better for FIFA and everyone involved to send a clear signal about the importance of what is being done.
An almost automatic switch and fast possibility to play for the new team, doesn`t really look good and very strange, and the worst from it, is that it sends the message that this issue isn't as important, as what it is.

In the case of Chile ?
Well we've lost some players, whom have decided to play for other teams, but I'm not aware of, if any of them were up to the chilean NT level or that if they have ever played for any of our youth NT's. The truth is that there are lots of chileans in other countries, playing for other teams, but most of them were born in the other country or they were raised in the other country, so for the issue of the question, I believe it wouldn't be the case. In Football, we are mainly an exporter of genes, and whom most gets the benefit of it, are the others.

Now, there have been scouts of other countries seeking around here for potential players, but unfortunately for them, we chileans are raised and educated since childhood with a very powerful sense of patriotism and/or nationalism, so if our players were raised here, they will be the first to kick the scouts ass out of here, for simply suggesting them to do something that for many of us, could be seen as high treason to the nation.

 

In Venezuela people also speak castilian , but venezuelan castilian, and Amorebieta dont speak venezuelean castilian. It is like speakingbritish english or USA english. Amorebieta only was born there , but heisnt
venezuelan. Thiago Alcantara is more spanish than Amorebieta venezuelan by far. Thiago at least speak spanish-castilian in spanish form and he has been living in Spain most of his life.

 

Yup, just a question of accents here. Nothing important really.

 

In the post you quoted, I was actually trying to make the same point. Puertorricane was criticizing you for saying that he doesn't speak "venezuelean". I was just trying to clarify that you probably were referring to Venezuelan Spanish, which it seems you were.

Well, sure, but I think it would be more precise to call them dialects rather than accents.

 

Oh you! If so then we should always say Southern dialect instead of Southern accent. It just confuses non-linguist people. Latin American language differences are more pronounced than American English but nowhere near what we see in England or Spain.

 

May I point out to you how much Switzerland benefited in footballing terms from the Yugoslav war? The list of players whose parents came to Switzerland solely because they displaced because of the war. This includes some of your most important players:

Valon Beharmi
Xherdan Shaquiri
Dlerim Dzemaili
Granit Xhaka
Pajtim Kasami
Admir Mehmedi
Haris Sferovic
Josip Drmic
Mario Gavranovic
Amongst many others...

I for one am extremely happy that many players are going back and playing for the country of their heritage in the case of Yugoslavs.

 

In fact, those who eventually switched from one team to another, did make the correct decision from the begining.
As they chose what mostly benefits them, as it is their legs the ones that reaches the level of play where they eventually get. Not the legs of others, who got where they got to be.
Their choice always was theirs. It migh sound selfish, but that is how it has always been.

 

I don`t particularly dislike the actual policy for switching from NT`s when it gets to young people.
As a youngster, kids may take lots of decisions to which afterwards they could be sorry for, and I don`t think we must put them responsible for every one of them, at their tender age. After all no one dies, if they chose one NT over another one, so it is not really so important, from that point of view. What would be disgusting if they chose to play for one team, make the switch and after some time, make it again. A one time switch is perfectly acceptable, or many switches before their 21 years of age as long as they are boys. Once they become adults (after 21 years old, they must start being more responsible for their calls).

For any person below 21 years of age, and not only in football but for anything, lots of things pass through their minds so it is likely that they make a mistake, or choose wrong when the time comes, so for something so important as choosing which NT at adult level, they may represent, I would prefer to give them the chance to change up their minds, to do so, till their 22 year old birthday. Now, when it gets to over aged players (22 years or more), the player has had lots of time to think the type of decision that leads to representing one or another team, so at that age, once they took that call, it must be definitive, with no posible switch ( I know FIFA doesn`t see it this way, and here I disagree with them).

However, regarding "21 year old or less" players, I believe that once they decide to make a switch, there must be a reasonable time lapse where that player must not play for any NT, during the switch, which as I said in another post, 6 months seems reasonable to me, and of course it isn`t acceptable to see that same player represent 2 NT's in the same competition. If a player played one game for one NT of WC qualifiers, in this case he must wait, till those qualifiers end, before doing it for another team (independently that the qualifiers take more than one year to end, as if it were the case). Now if during the same time the qualifiers or the tournament where the player took part of, there is another competition at the same time, if the 6 months time for the switch to take place, have ended, there is no problem he plays in it.

This is my opinion regarding the issue, in reference to NT's. During the whole process, if a player switches from one NT to another, if he was bonded to a club, once the switch takes place, he remains and keeps on being bonded to the same club, unless their club decides to let him go. Club situation is something completely diferent, once the players sign their contract, they are bonded to it, as any other citizen is when they do the same thing.

 

Certainly not unlimited. Ditch that idea out of hand.

The current system seems open to whatever <ahem> "interpretation" that suits those parties likely to benefit the most, so that needs to be, at the very least, tightened up.

I personally think it could, and should be this easy.....

A player is eligible to represent:

a) The country of his birth, or
b The country of either of his natural parents birth, or
c) Any country in which he has permanently resided since he began his formative football coaching

These conditions are subject to the proviso that once a player has played for any country's recognised national XI at any level then he is permanently locked into playing solely for that country in the future. End of.

With these easy to understand rules in place, it all becomes quite clear and simple.

For example, a young player born in Northern Ireland who has a Welsh father and a Scottish mother, but whose family moved to England when he was a small boy and he learned to play football as a junior at an English club could choose England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. However, if he is selected by Scotland at schoolboy level and plays for them, he is Scottish for life. No ifs or buts. Once he pulls that jersey over his head and runs out onto the pitch, he's a Scottish international for life.

It really is that simple.

 

Right, because having 14 year old kids making irrevocable life decisions is a great idea. This also gives associations every incentive to cap every possible dual national at the youth level, where they really don't care about the results anyway.

 

I think you denigrate and patronise these "14 year old kids" a little, and seem to be taking them as naïve little boys, sitting in their bedrooms squawking to their mates on Facebook "Hey, I've just been picked for the Faroe Islands cos my dad was born there. That's well good, innit".

I don't think it's like that. Young players have parents who (with some exceptions I'll grant you) mostly have their child's best interests at heart. They also have coaches who will have put a lot of effort into that young player's development. They are the ones most likely to have the best understanding as to whether or not the time is right to make a commitment. The modern schoolboy player has access to a lot of advice and assistance at an early age, from people who are close to them and don't necessarily have a cynical agenda.

And don't go thinking young people are stupid, either. Young players who have ambition and believe in themselves are capable of making life defining decisions at a relatively early age, especially if backed up by good advice. It would be reasonable to argue that some will not have good advice or support, and some will make immature decisions, Some will get it wrong and live to regret it. Too bad. I'm not suggesting anything is perfect, and nobody ever said life is always fair. Sometimes, some people lose out. That's life.

The current system is unfair too, because it is exploitative and creates confusion to the player. It can also work against the people who support, develop and nurture young talent, to see it hoovered away from them by the rich and powerful who cynically manipulate deliberately vague rules to suit themselves.

And lastly, as for your spurious comment that small countries will just cap every kid at schoolboy level and ringfence them, that is just plain daft in my opinion. Being selected isn't necessarily a done deal. If the player declines the offer to play then he hasn't committed himself. Indeed, I would argue that if the rules really were rigid and unbending in this way, it would make young players think long and hard before committing themselves rather than adopting a blasé attitude that "Oh well, it doesn't matter what I do now, I can always change my mind later."

All things considered, having clear, simple, rigid rules is not perfect, but it would be, in my opinion, better than we've got.

 

I also think that once a player has been capped by a side, even at the youth level, he should not be allowed to play for another side. That is not because 14 year old players always make the right choices, but because the issue of which country you can represent is really not one of choice at all. It is about which country you belong to. And if you are eligible to play for a youth national team and choose that youth national team, then the country that has the most claim on you is that one and not another one.

 

In this day and age there are many players who don't belong to any one country. I have issues with players that gain nationality by playing 5 years in one league, but not with players who have a Ghanaian mother, Colombian father, are born in Jamaica, but raised in France. They 'belong' top four countries and only a fully grown individual can make an honest grown-up decisions as to where he feels he has the strongest connections to.

That's why youth tournaments simply shouldn't count and players should be able to freely change their choice at least until their 18th birthday, preferably until they are 21.

 

The thought of one player being totally Stateless is simply not viable. It is not possible for anybody to have no country. Everybody was born somewhere.

You make an interesting and valid point about an age limit, but only so far.

Having an interchangeability window open up to age 18 would allow players such as Wayne Rooney and Theo Walcott, who played their first matches for the full England team at the age of 17,(as did Pele with Brazil) would have enabled them to change teams after they had played full cap international matches for their country of birth. Are you suggesting that players should be able to change national teams once they have played a full cap international..?

I am sure there will be other instances where players have debuted for their full national XI prior to their 18th birthday. Are you seriously suggesting that a player may, for example, represent one country in a world cup, and if spotted by another nation who considered him talented enough, to be able to use vague and easily manipulated regulations to persuade him to change teams.

The World Cup would simply become another shop window, with the biggest, richest nations able to buy up the best players by stretching national player qualification rules to the max. Why not introduce a transfer market while you're about it and not bother with nationality rules at all..!!

 

What has place of birth got to do with anything? It is probably the worst indicator of nationality of all. Where a person grows up and who his parents are is vastly more important.

 

No it isnt, laws of each country decide who and what you are. A mexican will always be mexican to the US government no matter how american that mexican feels. Just look at all the forms you fill throughout your life they dont give you the option to put down american. You are either mexican american, hispanic, latino but you cant put down american. Same goes for all other nationalities with the exception of caucasians who are considered american no matter what.


[]__[]

 

Ok. But now we're getting into politics

 

We may agree to disagree on this particular point, but I happen to think (and I would reckon that many would agree with me) that place of birth has got everything to do with it.

A person's place of birth is the primary source of his national identity according to all international conventions. When a player signs professional forms in any national league, one of the principle boxes on the form is for his place of birth, not where his parents were born, or indeed, where he grew up.

Walk into any embassy, anywhere in the world and ask for a passport. The first thing you will be asked is your place of birth. If you were born in that country, you will undoubtedly qualify. That rule is universal in all but the most ethnically and racially divided nations. If you were born elsewhere, you may still qualify if your parents were born there, or if you have resided legally in that country for a recognised period of time. The inference of this is quite clear. Place of birth trumps other considerations.

And so it is with football. Place of birth matters.

I can't believe I had to explain that.



PS
I'm sure you'll join me in wishing Bosnia-Herzogovina well in the World Cup next year, and I'm sure you'll get right behind Croatia in their play off match.

 

In the United Kingdom, English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish can simply enter "British" and that covers everything. We have recently seen a trend on our census and other official forms that allows ethnic sub divisions, such as Asian, African, Caribbean, etc, etc,but these are just for statistical purposes. They don't confer any special privilege or denial on anybody as long as they are in the country legally.

It keeps coming back to the same thing. Officialdom takes place of birth as the first priority.

 

No. Please read into jus sanguinis (the dominant principle of citizenship in Europe) vs jus soli (the principle you described above). The only reason place of birth is asked first is because in most cases it makes things simple.

In football you have players like Andre Ayew, who were born in France, but feel 100% Ghanaian. His brother Jordan even featured for French youth teams, but he stated very early that he is only interested in playing for Ghana. And you also have an increaisng number of African and Carribbean born players, who pledge their allegiance to the European country, because that is where they grew up (they barely know anything about their place of birth).

Place of birth matters, but in reality when decisions are made based on national identity (not i.e. monetary gains) place of birth is less important than were you grow up or who you're parents are.

I can't believe you explained that and had no idea about citizenship law.

Croatia? Not bloody likely.

 

Oh, I understand citizenship law perfectly well, after all, and if you'd read my original post properly, you would have read that my original post had, as the third criteria:

c) Any country in which he has permanently resided since he began his formative football coaching

By that I meant that, if a player were to come to, say, England as a young child, and began learning the game under English coaches, developed as a player within the English system and played in English leagues, then he is, by default, an English player and would qualify as "English" for the purposes of international football. I think that scenario is entirely reasonable and fair.

I can't speak for Andre Ayew, but the worldly wise part of me, that has seen all sorts of subterfuges employed by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations over a very long period of life, leads me to think that Andre Ayew would say anything to get what he wanted. He might feel Ghanaian today, and if, say, Italy wanted him tomorrow he might all of a sudden come over all Italian "feeling". It's funny how people can have strong emotions when they want something.

You can't base legislation on a "feeling".

I do take your point about the Caribbean players in England, such as John Barnes (born in Jamaica) and others. We have integrated many such sportsmen and women who have grown up here. Mudsudhen Singh Panesar (from India) plays cricket for England and is known affectionately by fans as "Monty". At the Olympic games last year, we wildly cheered a runner named Mohammad who won two gold medals on the track. Britain is a successful multicultural country and we accept one and all.

But one of the most shameful incidents in our sporting past, came when Britain gave a very hastily contrived passport to South African born runner Zola Budd so she could run for GB at the 1984 Olympics. At that time, South Africa was proscribed from international sport because of their apartheid regime. Budd found a spurious connection to British ancestry, said she "felt" British and got her place at the games. The vast majority of the British people were extremely unhappy about this, even though she was considered to be a serious gold medal prospect at the time. We didn't care about that. Her claim to "Britishness" was clearly bogus and self serving and the government came in for a lot of criticism.

My point is..... and I hope this is the last time I have to spell it out...... that place of birth is the overriding factor for national identity at sporting level, though other criteria should be acceptable provided there are certain limits, that are intended to prevent cynical exploitation.


Lastly..... I will confess my comment about cheering Croatia on was a little "tongue in cheek" . I kind of imagined it would be like expecting the Scots to support England next year. It's just not going to happen. Anyway, I hope that clears things up.

Regards.

 

I believe the disagreement in more one of context than content. The discussion isn't about national citizenship laws, but player choice.

He is not 'by default' an English player. You're approaching the whole issue all wrong. From a personal stanpoint (the only one that really matters) in general where a person grows up and his parental origins are more important than where someone was born. Depending on the country citizenship can be appropriated through place of birth, but really - what does it matter to the person in question where he was born? He wasn't even self-aware at that point in time.

No. Just no. Ayew was born in France (when his father was still playing football at OM) and spent his time growing up between Ghana and France. He speaks fluent French and could have easily made the French youth squads (he would probably also be a French national by now), but he was adamant to play for Ghana from the get go.

That said Ayew did sort of blackmail Ghana into capping him threatening to play for France if the GFA don;t call him up

No, we can't base legislation on a feeling. But we're not talking about legislation, but personal preferences given the increasingly blurred lines between ius sanguinis and jus soli, where people can have several nationalities according to the law of several nations (I myself have two passports - one based on jus soli and one based on jus sanguinis - and could easily acquire a third, while my friend's daughters have four passports: Serbian, Mongolian, British and Bosnian).

No, it is not the overriding factor. The overriding factor is what nationalities you possess. It is fully possible and even normal for someone to be born somewhere and not possess the nationality of that country.

I will back Bosnia however. Not a real fan of the whole Serbian nationalism. But Croatia - the dislike is just too strong

Cheers

 

What a fascinating conversation on what is, I'm sure we will agree on this at least, a very touchy subject.

I do agree with you on several points, but I must disagree when you say we're not talking about legislation. I think we are. What we're talking about is the footballing structure that regulates the ability (or otherwise) of players to chop and change the national football team they play for and that is very much a matter of legislation.

FIFA must set down the criteria by which a player is eligible to represent one country or another and that IS legislation. Without it, any player could choose to play for any nation at any time. That would be just plain daft. FIFA set down these criteria (call them 'rules', call it 'legislation', call it anything you wish, it amounts to the same thing) and some players benefit from them, and unfortunately, some are disadvantaged in relation to their personal desires.

You are clearly knowledgeable on the matter of citizen Ayew and I'm not in a position to challenge you on his personal circumstances, but if his ambitions and desires are thwarted by FIFA regulations, then I'm afraid he has two choices: Put up or shut up. If his legal status as a Frenchman is so desperately traumatic for him (and as an Englishman, I could understand that ), he should challenge FIFA on the matter through the appeals process. If he wins, he wins. If he doesn't, then he'll just have to get on with his life as best he can.

As much as I would agree with anybody who says that FIFA are a corrupt, monolithic bureaucracy run by an autocratic dictator who treats world football as his own personal fiefdom, I do sympathise with them inasmuch as they are trying to run a game where vested interests, varying national customs and laws, and the personal desires of individuals clash. But when all is said and done, there has to be a set framework within which everybody must work and it can't be simply put to one side to benefit one individual, no matter how much he wishes and hopes and dreams his life was different.

Whether he likes it or not, for all intents and purposes, poor old Ayew, Gawd bless his cotton socks, is French. He can challenge that rule if he so desires. It's not impossible for the little guy to win, you know. Just ask Jan Marc Bosman..!!

I stand by my belief that there should be a distinct and unmistakeable set of regulations, based on my three point plan above. It's easy to understand, easily applied and leaves nobody in any doubt as to where they stand. If anybody wanted to challenge it, then they would be at liberty to do so.



Good luck with Bosnia at the World Cup. I can understand the Croatia thing. The Scots are like it with England. I used to work with one Scottish guy who, during the World Cup in 2002, bought little flags of every other participating nation and would put the flag of whatever country England were scheduled to play next on his desk. You can imagine how unpopular this made him when we were due to play Argentina..!! His slogan was "Anyone But England" and it got him a good bantering from everybody at work. Especially when we went on to beat Argentina.

I don't know how "Anyone But Croatia" translates into your native language (and I must say I'm impressed with your very good English, by the way) but perhaps you might think of doing the little flags thing. It's all in good fun.

Regards.