The 'Home Nations' are the only nations where the residency rule does not apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_eligibility_rules#Home_nations_agreement If Rangel had joined Schalke (example) instead of Swansea then he would be eligible to play for Germany, but because he joined a club in one of the 'Home Nations' (Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland) this rule does not apply. The residency rule only applies to every other nation on the planet, we get screwed over!!! And to think Rangel said last season that he would consider playing for our nation!
I also thought there were rumours that either Wales or England were going to try and get Carlo Cuddiccini, the former Chelsea keeper to play for them? Anyways cheers for the clarification Project. The 'Home Nations' getting screwed by FIFA/UEFA, sounds just about right.
Apparently the 'Home Nations' agreed to this, why the hell are we not allowed to VOTE who runs these 'Home Nations' Football Associations? We put the money in and they always, ALWAYS, do things opposite to what we want! I want all these banal dinosaurs OUT!
I am personally in favour of not allowing outsiders being able to play for their adopted country. I think its a form of cheating and no matter who you are except for people who are temporary abroad due to working for the country (armed forces,diplomats etc) should only play for where you were born...I love rangel but he was born elsewhere and he rightly has no right to play for wales but his own children can as they were born here......I don't like players not making the grade in the country they were born being allowed to play for another country...Its not ethical and the true meaning of representing your country....I would not even allow countries to employ foreign managers as it makes a mockery of what international football is all about...
If a player has adopted another country then surely he deserves the right to represent that country in sport. He can do it in all other sports, why should football be so arrogant to buck the trend? Bear in mind, this is not a new thing to football as players have represented adopted nations at the very beginning on the international side of the sport. You claim it is not ethical but in the real world it was people doing things for their adopted nations that made the world it is today, what is not ethical is denying those people the same rights as others native to their adopted nation. Imagine if that mentality extended beyond Home Nations football associations and even beyond sport... Einstein would have been either executed or forced to make the Nuke for the Nazi's, Sigmond Frued was going to be forced to run experiments on live people but moved and represented the UK and although he didn't live long after adopting the UK he helped the UK by identifying the psychological triggers for Post Traumatic Stress in British Soldiers and passed it on to other nations for the patients benefit. There is nothing unethical in representing your adopted nation in sport, or any other subject, provided it is not for malicious means. FIFA chose 5 years residency because at the time way back then the UK required five years residency to acquire a passport and FIFA effectively looked to the UK for guidance to regulate the practice to make it a fair system not easily abused by players.
i dont care whether they adopt a country or not they were not born there so why should they be allowed to play for their adopted country, There are players who are natives who has a right to play and are being over looked because of a foreigner who cant get into their birth countries side, If any tom dick or harry can play for whatever country wants them then its not a true international side where you play players born in that country.....I cant recognize any country that uses foreigners in their side as a true international side.....I don't like it in any international sport let alone soccer. Its false and a misinterpretation of what international sport is all about.......I would rather lose than win with a player who by birth should not be there and would not be if he was picked by his own birth country.....It makes a joke of what is suppose to be a competition between countries of birth and should not be allowed..
So by that definition, Joe Calzaghe is English and not Welsh/Italian because he was born in England and therefore should have been the 'Pride of England' instead the 'Pride of Wales'?
No offence VRD, but wasnt this common knowledge. It was announced in the media and discussed right here last July! I also notice you have posted about the Swansea film, announced in the media and duscussed here last month. Has your paper boy been late? What next, Brendan Rodgers moves to Liverpool? Saying that, at least you created a thread
yes absolutely. He might be a winner but i don't recognize him as a welsh winner but an English winner. but he is british he was born in brittain so i recognize him as British...
As far as I'm concerned, you should be eligible to play only for the country in which you were born. Kevin-Prince Boateng was born in West Germany and has a German mother, and yet because he was allowed to play for the country of his father's birth, Ghana, he ended up playing against his ****ing BROTHER in the WORLD CUP. The massively overrated Wilfried Zaha is being hailed as one of the potential greats of the next generation of English footballers. He was born in the Ivory Coast to native Ivorian parents. Regardless of whether he was raised and educated in England, he isn't English. Fabrice Muamba was born in DR Congo to Congolese parents and didn't move to England until he was 11. Within 5 years he had played for the England U-16s. It's not right and it's a rule that needs changing.
i was born in scotland (scottish father and english mother) and left for australia on my 12th birthday, who should i play for Scotland, england or Australia
