It would be wrong to deny him the chance if he really did feel English and identify with the country. If he were lying that would be a huge shame... but I'm not sure how you can prove one way or another. When in doubt I'd rather give people benefit of the doubt. I'd hope the FA would use intelligence and diligence in deciding which foreign horns should represent the country.
Exactly. I never really liked Drogba because of his diving antics etc but he had my respect purely because he refused to play for France because he wanted to represent is true nation, Ivory Coast. Similarly with Giggs with Wales when he could have played in European Championships and World Cups with England.
True and I don't dispute that but how do you judge it other than opinion? I realise you said this but that is my point
Everybody should claim they "feel" Brazilian then.? Seriously, this boils down to whether you feel there should be strict criteria or not. If so, then we can discuss what those criteria are, but if it's down to a player saying they feel part of something it's just impossible to verify and the argument becomes moot.
There is no correct answer. You either block people who deserve a chance or allow people that don't. It depends which you feel is most fair and you'll never get everyone to agree. My mum was an immigrant... lived in four countries and didn't speak a word of English till she was 9 yet she is probably the "most English" woman I've ever known. I've met lots of immigrants in my life and many of them are the most patriotic people I know... especially those that came from less free or more empoverished nations. Everyone has immigrants somewhere in their family tree... even if it is Hengist and Horsa landing in Kent. There is no ethnically pure Englishman. Nationality is a state of mind.
Given I posted the strict criteria at #22 [I think] - and there's no 'I feel English' listed, how would you change those guidelines? EDIT - 1. A Player who, under the terms of art. 5, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions: a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association; b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association; c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association; d) He has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of the relevant association.
I don't agree with that. I think you can have strict criteria that is also fair. As suggested above, someone that is born or their parents are born in that country or they lived in said country for five years prior to their sixteenth birthday is a clear guidance and equally fair too. The only time this may become unfair is if, both the parents and grandparents worked away from home a lot but since you are then talking about six more individuals that is very unlikely and even if that was the case, there is always the five years under sixteen bit to take into account.
Well absolutely. I think you must have citizenship from that country (earned through normal measures... no govt intervention to fast track for footballing reasons). That to me is the only provision. No other rules should be allowed. I don't think I should be allowed Hungarian, Romanian or German eligability from my grandparents (actually I think my grandfather obtained Turkish citizenry too)... unless I EARNED citizenship in one of those countries and truly "felt" like I belonged to those nations. (I think I can claim German citizenship by having a German grandparent without living there... German citizenship is difficult to obtain unless you have a recent ancestor and then it becomes easy)... but I don't feel German and think Michael Schumacher is an arse... so can't be German. The question is for multiple passport holding identities... to me that's where being true to oneself and going with the nationality you feel... rather that picking based on what is best for career comes in. The examples used above Barnes... Raheem... and theoretical future Janujizz ALL meet those guidelines.
Take David Beckham's children as an example for which country to 'choose' to represent - they were born in 3 different countries, 2 in UK, 1 in Spain, 1 in USA. Who should they represent? The term 'clear connection with' is what's officially being used by FIFA.
yes i think that's wrong, should be the country they was born in for me, simple and no ruddy confusion necessary. although a lot of the confusion is hidden behind money no doubt.
Can't be having that. There has to be a more extended qualification than that. What if the parents are working abroad for a year or two when the child is born, then they bring the infant back to their native country? That child must be considered the same nationality as its parents, surely? It shouldn't be considered the national of a country it has little or no real connection with.
1. If a player has a parent that comes from that country, or grandparent. 2. If a player has lived in the country for a minimum of 3 or 4 years, and obtains a passport, that is enough proof that they do wish to identify as a citizen of that nation. That should be enough. If a player born in Africa comes to England and lives here for a few years, gets a passport, and wishes to play for the English team, what else do you need? Racial ancestry? Ethnicities are largely human constructs and have little base in biology other than allele frequency. Agreeing to give up your former nationality to risk only getting a single call up is enough to prove they "feel" connected enough to play for their host nation.
Yet, they've all spent most of their life in USA so more than likely consider themselves English or American. Anyone else find it weird to say Beckham and Posh have a Spanish kid? Only one of them could play for Spain whereas they could all play for England or USA (eventually)
Giggs could play for England or Wales as one parent was English and one was Welsh. This is different to a player being "naturalised" due to living in a country for a set period of time.
Which is what makes the whole debate weird. I think the eligibility rules for us home nations is fine the way it is you couldn't really make it any fairer. Unless someone out there can suggest something ....
let the bnp decide. simple.. in effect whilshire and his lot dominate thinking so you may as well. some simple truths; 1. fifa are right in not allowing "swapping" they've relaxed to competitive games but once you play one second for a team you have chosen and you are locked. we don't need swapping. we'd see arab states offering mad money to messi to play for them for 2 years world xi in world cup and all that. 2. once locking one choice for life is in place next is how to select a country. FRANKLY.... get a passport. after that being a citizen of a country (pay tax or what ever etc etc) should allow you to play. if thats 5 years in the door and you beome a citizen at 29 who gives a f. 3. england and other countries show arrogance (english manager bollox) and xenophobia about it when many examples exist of players coming even from commonwealth.
