Speaking as a mixed race person: youre right, its awesome.
Eligibility of footballers playing in different countries to birth
- Thread starter NotoriousISSY
- Start date
It does mean the earlier question of what happens if Scotland leave is very valid.
I'ts entirely plausible that in a few years there could be no UK - just four normal separate countries. There would no longer be such a thing as British (which is just a recent construct anyway) - would you start feeling English at this point, or would you cease to have any feelings of identity towards the place?
Nearly all of whom have genuine British family roots that would mean they could happily play for our football team too. There are very few who are purely nationalised, which I believe to be a step too far in both sports.
The worst sport for this (that I know of) is actually athletics, where you can happily switch between different countries with pretty much no justification, despite having already represented the pevious one at the top level.
For me, in an ideal world there would be one defining factor that decided the one country you could play for - eg place of birth / mum or dad's nationality. But there's no way to do this which wouldn't be unfair on a lot of people who genuinely don't feel alligned to that country. So, in the absence of that, what you need to do is try and minimise the amount people can pick and chose based on convenience (or worse, money). There's really no point in having international sport if there is choice involved in who to play for... we have club football for that.
My solution would be that we keep roughly the same qualification requirements as we currently have, but on the day a player first signs a professional contract, he has to commit to a country for good too. At this stage it should be too early for anybody to want to rule out playing for their "real" country on the basis that they may be not be quite good enough, but may make it somewhere else, so it at least makes the decision a genuine one.
Or is that plan massively flawed?
My solution would be that we keep roughly the same qualification requirements as we currently have, but on the day a player first signs a professional contract, he has to commit to a country for good too. At this stage it should be too early for anybody to want to rule out playing for their "real" country on the basis that they may be not be quite good enough, but may make it somewhere else, so it at least makes the decision a genuine one.
Or is that plan massively flawed?
Trust me, you don't want to get yourself involved with a Turkish girl. Or maybe it would be the best thing you ever do?
It's nothing personal against English people, I obviously like English people otherwise I wouldn't live here but I would not identify as English. I consider myself Turkish Cypriot so how could I be both? And that's obviously not even considering my Iranian side which I actually don't feel any attachment to.
I would probably choose to play for England over Iran given the choice.
Personally, I don't like people with zero attachment to a nation playing for their national team out of convenience, eg your typical Brazilian not good enough to play for Brazil turning up for some former Soviet Republic. I would argue the rule is wrong in that it requires five years in that country after the age of 18 when I would think it is five years BEFORE the age of 18 that should be considered.
With Januzaj in particular, I doubt he has the slightest inclination to play for England. He's good enough to play for any of the other eligible countries, and Belgium look quite handy going forward. Considering that, if he actually preferred to wait until he is 23 to play for England and miss two World Cups in the process, then there must be some powerful reason we are unaware of. Chances are it's just pointless media-fabricated nonsense.
I'm inclined to agree with GM that attachment to Britain and England are very different things. Having lived in England for fifteen years myself, if I were good enough (not) and interested to play over my country of birth (not) I would have some significant attachment involved in a Team GB vs. another NT, just out of being an anglophile. England vs. Scotland I wouldn't feel like I had any particular attachment to either side (other than a soft spot for the underdog), while all around me in either team would feel quite differently!!!!
With Januzaj in particular, I doubt he has the slightest inclination to play for England. He's good enough to play for any of the other eligible countries, and Belgium look quite handy going forward. Considering that, if he actually preferred to wait until he is 23 to play for England and miss two World Cups in the process, then there must be some powerful reason we are unaware of. Chances are it's just pointless media-fabricated nonsense.
I'm inclined to agree with GM that attachment to Britain and England are very different things. Having lived in England for fifteen years myself, if I were good enough (not) and interested to play over my country of birth (not) I would have some significant attachment involved in a Team GB vs. another NT, just out of being an anglophile. England vs. Scotland I wouldn't feel like I had any particular attachment to either side (other than a soft spot for the underdog), while all around me in either team would feel quite differently!!!!
To me this seems like you have created a problem where none exists - or at least inflated a tiny issue into a problem worthy of serious attention. I dont see any reason why there shouldnt be several criteria by which a person judges their nationality. It is quite easy to feel simultaneous loyalty to multiple countries. Maybe it needs to be a bit tightened up around the edges but this is hardly urgent: look at Januzaj, an extreme example, he can opt for any one of half a dozen countries to play for, or nearly. But even so, who cares? I mean it will be a bit daft if he chooses England, but he wont. It isnt international football has become a farce with people playing for random countries to which they have no real affiliation.
I think it is reasonably self policing because people generally want to play for a country they feel an affinity for in their heart, which will nine times out of ten mean they are from there by one of the accepted measures. And supporters want to see a difference between international and club football, if that difference is eroded and the England team is no longer particularly English I imagine people would lose interest in international football. So if there are loopholes that are being exploited by some, somebody mentioned Qatar, maybe they should be tightened. But I dont think this would be a very difficult job, and neither is it an urgent one.
Having said all that this is not an issue I have considered much before, so maybe there is an angle to this I am missing.
He never said anything about a girl.... this is the 21st century.
No, I understand that, don't worry - I don't think you're on some kind of English tip, just trying to understand your position. You say "how could I be both", but didn't you previously say that you feel British?
Not a farce, and maybe you're right that it just needs to be a bit tightened up a bit, but there are definitely genuine large-scale examples. Jack Charlton's Ireland obviosuly springs to mind - how many of them would have commited to Ireland ahead of England as a 16 year-old?
And while the way some middle-eastern teams are behaving isn't a problem at the moment, whose to say they couldn't keep pushing the model until they are genuine contenders? Who would have believed four years ago that Qatar would be able to buy hosting rights to the world cup?
I've definitely heard his dad was born here. It says so on his wiki, but I'm not going to back myself up on that.
They reckon his dad went over to Somalia, met his mother, they had kids, he came back, Mo came over aged 8 to live with his dad (but not sure if that includes siblings and the mother).
most of the rules regarding eligibility are fine (birth, grandparents, 5 yr schooling etc) - it is the just the 5 years to naturalisation which is bollocks, should be at least 10 years
if Diego Costa plays for Spain then that is ridiculous, especially since he played 2 friendlies for Brazil just a few months ago - the Spanish are right greedy bastards, they have the most talented group of players on the planet and yet they still want to rob a player from Brazil
if Diego Costa plays for Spain then that is ridiculous, especially since he played 2 friendlies for Brazil just a few months ago - the Spanish are right greedy bastards, they have the most talented group of players on the planet and yet they still want to rob a player from Brazil
It's not a level playing field due to the countries having vastly different methods of handing out citizenship and it will be unfair to many nations unless FIFA decides to dish out some kind of rules. For example, it's really weird that you'd be able to play for a country when your parents couldn't.
OK well the bit in bold is an entirely different issue to my mind, again I am not clued up on this, maybe there is a link I dont know of, but Qatar didnt get to host the WC because of any claim it has to naturalised players does it?
Ireland is a good example of what we are talking about here. I see the point you are making, but this exemplifies what I am saying, I dont see it as a problem. OK so maybe Ireland can at times look like a team of England rejects like Andy Townsend. If it looks like a cockney and sounds like a cockney, maybe it is a cockney and maybe it shouldnt be playing for Ireland. OR. Maybe some countries are so small that if they could only field players that were born there, or if there was a tighter criteria, maybe the gulf between the big nations and the smaller ones would be even bigger - it seems to me it is quite big enough already. So what if Ireland get a few extra players by a bit of nationalistic slight of hand? And anyway, it seems to me most people do have an Irish grandparent anyway (I certainly do), so in the case of Ireland I dont think the system looks broken.
Then he is as British as Nigel Farage IMO. If Wiki says it that is good enough for me!
I think this whole Adnan debate is fascinating, national identity is so complex and perhaps nowhere moreso than in England. I wonder if this would even be a debate, if the FAs of England, Wales, Scotland and NI were to merge to form a GB football team. It seems to be that English national identity tends to be very insular but British national identity is quite the opposite. The prospect of Adnan 'qualifying' for a GB football team wouldn't raise a single eyebrow IMO but as soon as we get into 'englishness' the whole tone and tenor of the debate shifts. Fascinating stuff...
Are we reading the same debate?!
You are right. And Britishness could be about to change again, depending on what happens with Scotland.
Is this a legacy of the empire? Englishness was one thing, but anyone from the furthest reaches of the empire had a claim on Britishness, hence the inclusive feel of it now?
Well yes, this thread was inspired by the wider media debate about footballers (e.g. Adnan) playing for different countries to that of their birth. Perhaps I should re-phrase, I find the whole debate about Britishness and Englishness fascinating.
I would say the real debate is who knows more Turkish people out of you and me, but then that's not even a contest you come close to
Yes, I agree. I think I see English and British differently to how others in here see it. But over in England you have 2 different identities, whereas you have being from England but with a British nationality whereas in Germany, Portugal, France etc etc have the country and nationality together.
Exactly, and if money started influencing international allegiances... I think birth, parents birth, plus five years before the age of 18 (call it formative non-pro years) takes care of all possible agreeable angles.
It is. I don't think it is healthy to put a teenager under such pressure. For most it's a no-brainer, but for those with various options and mixed allegiances asking them to choose that early is unfair. Many players peak late and are called up for their NT 5-10 years after the decision time you laid out. Lots may have happened in between, including having moved to one of the eligible countries and played your entire career there... only to find you made the wrong choice aged 18. That would be a bit shit.
quite. it very much is a legacy of empire. its really interesting that many English folks don't see the world that way though.
I dont massively see the need for the 5 years before the age of 18 rule. Why not just birth and parents' birth. Or birth or grandparents birth (I thought you would be eligible to play for a country via a grandparent?)
Given all the talk us Irish go on about our 'diaspora', we really should be widening the net for players for our national team. There has to be some decent Irish lads in the States for example who could improve our national team. There was even an Irish community in Argentina (quite a sizable one) dating back to the 19th century. I wonder can we find the Irish Messi. Hell if France, Holland, Belgium all can enjoy recruit top class talent from their former colonies then the Irish should be looking for the grandsons of those who were forced to emigrate under the tyranny of British rule.
I think that's only for Brits and Irishmen.
No, I was purely using it as an example of how rapidly things can change and assumptions can be challenged, especially by a country with enough cash. At the moment the Qatar national team looks like an irrelevance, but if in 10 eyars they are playing in the Worlod Cup Final with a team of 11 brazillians, suddenly the system looks pretty fecked.
But the key thing is, if you had to commit to a country, would it be Ireland? I'm happy for you to have the option, but I do think players should have to nail their colours to the mast before the decision starts getting swayed by other factors.
Oh really is it? I didn't know that. That blows my quest for the Irish Messi out of the water then.
Take Zaha, he moved to England aged 4. His parents and himself are from Ivory Coast yet he has lived in England and felt at home in England for as long as he can remember. Would you bar him from playing for England? That would be ludicrous.
Again, my "commit at the start of your career" plan covers this one nicely.
Im quite comfortable with the idea that someone makes the decision at around 18 or so when they are likely to be called up. It seems to work in most cases.
The problem with the Irish diaspora is that the eligibility rules say you have to establish a 'clear connection' to a country and a clear connection entails having either a grandparent or a parent born in the that country. The vast majority of Irish Americans are descended from people who arrived in America in the 1920s or earlier so it's extremely unlikely for someone of playing age to be eligible on that score.
OK fair enough, in that scenario it works. I guess 5 years before 18 takes you back to 13, which is pretty much formative childhood.
They don't though. Plenty hold out well into their 20s, before eventually realising they won't play for their first choice, and then go and find (or are found by) somebody else they have a tenuous connection with.
An "anyone born within one mile of an Irish themed pub rule" could be quite advantageous.
As long as the factors defining eligibility are not artificial nonsense (e.g. Almunia being eligible to play for England just because he spent five years being a sub at Arsenal) I don't see any need to nail colours to a mast until a call up comes up. Your country of birth or that of your parents can't be altered. Having spent a sizeable chunk of your life as a child/teenager in a country is nothing you can go back to fix once you are 24 and Qatar wants you. Yes, there was the Freddy Adu case but that didn't turn out quite the way it was portrayed (i.e. USofA stealing the next George Weah as a teenager).
My instinctive reaction to that is what I posted above:
Maybe some countries are so small that if they could only field players that were born there, or if there was a tighter criteria, maybe the gulf between the big nations and the smaller ones would be even bigger - it seems to me it is quite big enough already.
By this I mean, if everyone had to choose early, footballers being cocky feckers many would assume they would make it for France, Spain, Italy or England, and choose them. By allowing them wait and see maybe you increase the chance of them eventually "downsizing" - rather than ending up with a surpluss of people who opted for a big country and then didnt make the grade.
As long as the connection isnt too tenuous - and we have talked about tightening up the criteria - that seems fair enough to me. If I am good enough I play for the bigger team with the greater chance of success. If I am not good enough then I choose a smaller country I am eligible for, and thereby increase the pool of talent available to the smaller counties. (Of course if the smaller countries are able to convince the best players to choose to play for them anyway, so much the better.)
You call me racist, it's these bloody ethnicity equal opportunities that are bloody racist. There's no option for me to put British, the only option is "White British" but I'm not white so I can't put that can I.
Not really. It looks like an obvious case of picking England to me, but imagine he was still at Crystal Palace and developed more slowly, then only got a call up aged 26 from Ivory Coast. Would you stop him playing for them on account of him having high hopes to play for England when he was 18? I wouldn't. He basically has two options and it's fine for him to have them IMO. The problem to me would be if some rich chap from Qatar or Kazakhstan can come in, buy him for some tinpot side of theirs and in five years' time have him (and 10 similar cases) as a starter. That's the day international football turns to shit.
Januzaj is an odd case that results from the split in the Balkans during the 90s. In most cases there are only a couple of options, usually an African and a European country, and forcing a choice aged 18 is only going to screw Africa.
If they are called up aged 18 they will usually make the decision then. If they aren't called up they shouldn't be forced to make it until a call up materialises and requires them making a choice.
But even then I imagine this will police itself quite well. Januzaj could play for Serbia. But is he likely to? Unlikely I would have thought, given the history between the countries. He will have loyalties to one side or the other due to his actual nationality and family ties and that will steer his decision.
Fair enough - I guess getting rid of "adult" nationalisation would pretty much sort out what problems there are at the moment.