• Sign up free today!

    Join in on the discussion, prediction leagues and competitions today! Sign up takes no longer than 5 minutes.

Sign in to follow this  
football forum

FIFA Considers Changes to Nationality Rules

Recommended Posts

George Weahs son, the lad is a hell of a talent. He was born in New York and plays for the United States. And to me, that right there is the immediate criteria. You play for the country of your birth.

Ok so your family emigrate immediately after your birth and you gain citizenship for another country. Then what? A choice over nationality has to be made early, but an informed not capriciously. That’s effectively part of the old system which was considered inflexible. I don’t really see a problem with it to be honest, unless it’s been exploited.

For Weah the younger, say Liberia were a powerhouse of international football, I don’t believe he should have the option to play for them through his birth. He was born and raised an American citizen. 

Ultimately, unless the maps are changing and new countries established, players need to make advisable choices early into their senior careers. And that’s the crux of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be hard to track someone's heritage etc, i would go with Batard on this one. If your are born in France you are French and you can't play for Nigeria or the other way around, just because your parents immigrated years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, True Blue said:

It would be hard to track someone's heritage etc, i would go with Batard on this one. If your are born in France you are French and you can't play for Nigeria or the other way around, just because your parents immigrated years ago.

these days it's not as hard as it used to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2004, Antar Yahia made history when becoming the first player to represent one national team at senior level having played for another at youth level. 

Yahia, who would go on to send Algeria to the 2010 World Cup, had played for France's Under-18 side. 

Previously, a footballer who had played for one country in a competitive international at both senior and junior level was not permitted to change nationality.

All that above is rubbish!  A lie, or whoever said it is a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

In 2004, Antar Yahia made history when becoming the first player to represent one national team at senior level having played for another at youth level. 

Yahia, who would go on to send Algeria to the 2010 World Cup, had played for France's Under-18 side. 

Previously, a footballer who had played for one country in a competitive international at both senior and junior level was not permitted to change nationality.

All that above is rubbish!  A lie, or whoever said it is a fool.

You see in that case I don't think what was done is right. You've already represented a nation irrespective of your age and that was the one you (or someone helped you) choose. You can't just go going around claiming heritage when it suits your fancy. Now, had he not chosen and not represented that's a completely different story. I also think its fine if you got exiled from your country and had to gain citizenship elsewhere but emmigration (with intent to change country of representation) post representation is not something I think is right. Sure, there are legal loopholes around this as well that could involve other diplomatic interventions but at the end of the day that probably accounts for less than 1% of the professional footballing world and those special cases shouldn't give FIFA any right to have a say in this matter ... period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with pinning someone down to the location of their birth.

I've always thought you should be eligible to play for the country you went to school in under the age of 16. This is the place that educated you and developed you as a footballer. None of this your nan had a fortnight camping in the valleys and now you can play for Wales crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

I disagree with pinning someone down to the location of their birth.

I've always thought you should be eligible to play for the country you went to school in under the age of 16. This is the place that educated you and developed you as a footballer. None of this your nan had a fortnight camping in the valleys and now you can play for Wales crap.

what if you went to various schools in different countries? 

Or you may develop as a footballer later in life after 16?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HoneyNUFC said:

I disagree with pinning someone down to the location of their birth.

I've always thought you should be eligible to play for the country you went to school in under the age of 16. This is the place that educated you and developed you as a footballer. None of this your nan had a fortnight camping in the valleys and now you can play for Wales crap.

xD 

It would take more than a fortnight of sleeping in a tent in the valleys before some would kick a ball for Wales mate lets be honest... sounds more like a double punishment.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Stan said:

what if you went to various schools in different countries? 

Or you may develop as a footballer later in life after 16?

If you go to multiple schools then that's fine, play for whoever, maybe with a 3 year rule. I'd also make an exception for refugees.

Playing for a country solely on the basis of genetic inheritance is racialist :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r: 

Nationality is not blood. It is not heritable and it is not determined by the location you took your first breath. Nationality is an ever evolving cultural influence on your way of life on the basis of where you're at.

We need some cut off point for football because it is a game of 16-40 year olds, which is why I say your nationalities at 16 years old are the ones you take into your football career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

xD 

It would take more than a fortnight of sleeping in a tent in the valleys before some would kick a ball for Wales mate lets be honest... sounds more like a double punishment.. 

 

Paul Dummett plays for Wales and he's about as Welsh as sushi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Nationality is not blood. It is not heritable and it is not determined by the location you took your first breath.

This is actually not the case as a blanket rule.  There are even biological differences in some areas of the world and I can use an example from my parent's country Spain with the Basques (true Basques).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birth place really doesnt mean anything,  You could be born in the middle east to European Parents who might have had to relocate there due to work reasons for a few years,  so does that make you an Arab?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mel81x said:

You see in that case I don't think what was done is right. You've already represented a nation irrespective of your age and that was the one you (or someone helped you) choose. You can't just go going around claiming heritage when it suits your fancy. Now, had he not chosen and not represented that's a completely different story. I also think its fine if you got exiled from your country and had to gain citizenship elsewhere but emmigration post representation is not something I think is right. Sure, there are legal loopholes around this as well that could involve other diplomatic interventions but at the end of the day that probably accounts for less than 1% of the professional footballing world and those special cases shouldn't give FIFA any right to have a say in this matter ... period.

Alfredo di Stéfano played for Argentina, Colombia and Spain...  There are dozens of players from the past that played competitively in international tournaments for various countries mate.

For me it should be a choice left to the individual for whatever reasons he puts forward and obviously once chosen, that's it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany have a big Identity crisis if you are talking about Heritage.  They have a number of players from Polish, Turkish, North African and Central Africa back grounds which have no representation of any German colonies.  Ozil for example won't even sing the German National anthem as he doesn't want to offend his Turkish dad xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SirBalon said:

This is actually not the case as a blanket rule.  There are even biological differences in some areas of the world and I can use an example from my parent's country Spain with the Basques (true Basques).

That is the racialism I am talking about. The desire to believe nationality is race and the failure to distinguish between the two.

Nationality is a social creation, you do not require any genetic similarity to become of a nation. The shape of your skull or the colour of your skin has nothing to do with a socially created nation state, it is largely down to a lack of migration across dozens and dozens of generations and has no baring on what a nationality would be today. "Spain" just happens to be the name of a socially constructed ruling country at the time and location of your parents birth. It is totally irrelevant to race. Many of those genetics are likely to have existed in that small pocket long before Spain was created.

Should we all play for West African countries because we are human?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HoneyNUFC said:

That is the racialism I am talking about. The desire to believe nationality is race and the failure to distinguish between the two.

It is indeed racialism...  But it doesn't stop it being factual mate!

True Basques have unified genetic similarities and are very distinctive from anything else anywhere.  I'm sure there may be other cases in other parts of the world but I can't quote them off the top of my head right now without making errors which in a case such as this it's very sensitive.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Alfredo di Stéfano played for Argentina, Colombia and Spain...  There are dozens of players from the past that played competitively in international tournaments for various countries mate.

For me it should be a choice left to the individual for whatever reasons he puts forward and obviously once chosen, that's it!

I agree it should be down to the individual but based on their parents and should be a limit to how far you can go back otherwise you have a problem like with the Republic of Ireland's teams in the 80s and 90's you were eligible to play for them if your great grandad had a pint of Guinness in any Irish county. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wales at the moment are abusing the system calling anyone up that is a bit Welsh in their family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VanPaddy said:

I agree it should be down to the individual but based on their parents and should be a limit to how far you can go back otherwise you have a problem like with the Republic of Ireland's teams in the 80s and 90's you were eligible to play for them if your great grandad had a pint of Guinness in any Irish county. 

Indeed there should be rules set to make it relative to nationality.  Grandparents isn't going to far for me...  Some people continue to be brought up culturally in that manner and that also counts as a sentiment of identity.  Obviously a line must be drawn and I would accept grandparents being a step too far although I wouldn't be in agreement through free option.

There are people born in one country to parents from another with two passports (nation of birth and of parents) and brought up in the manner of "back home".  It seems that those with problems to accept this sentiment are those countries with a high index of traditional historic immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Paul Dummett plays for Wales and he's about as Welsh as sushi. 

I have tried Sushi and it was as awful as Dummett it has to be said.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the Huddersfield win against Man Utd,  The Dutch pundits were going on about Aaron Mooy because he has Dutch Nationality due to his Parents being Dutch but lived in Australia.

Mooy is of Dutch heritage, and on his left shoulder, he has the words "Leven, Lachen, Liefde" tattooed, which translate to "Live, Love, Laugh". His mother, Sam, has the same words on her wrist. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's as simple as place of birth, but I think in most cases it's fairly easy to say what someone's nationality is.

If you're born somewhere but move away in your infancy, you belong to the nation you grew up in. Even if both your parents are of a certain nationality, if you grow up in another nation, with that language as your main language, that's your country. 

 Of course there are grey areas: Giggs for example was born in Wales and grew up in both England and Wales, and has an English accent. In that case it's really up to how the individual feels.

But I can't buy it when somebody plays for a country they at most visited relatives in sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirBalon said:

It is indeed racialism...  But it doesn't stop it being factual mate!

True Basques have unified genetic similarities and are very distinctive from anything else anywhere.  I'm sure there may be other cases in other parts of the world but I can't quote them off the top of my head right now without making errors which in a case such as this it's very sensitive.

Eh. Race can be geographically mapped to certain locations but that is irrelevant to nationality. They are not even remotely the same thing except to people with racist ideologies. You can be any nationality but you cannot be any race. 

Nationality is just the culture and border of the day, subject to change within an individual's life time. Your race won't change. You cannot genetically inherit culture, habit or obedience to a nation, aka nationality.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Eh. Race can be geographically mapped to certain locations but that is irrelevant to nationality. They are not even remotely the same thing except to people with racist ideologies. You can be any nationality but you cannot be any race. 

Nationality is just the culture and border of the day, subject to change within an individual's life time. Your race won't change. You cannot genetically inherit culture, habit or obedience to a nation, aka nationality, without being there.

Very true, but you can't deny and it's wrong to try and eradicate sentiment based on either of the two points.  As long as the sentiments aren't based on any superiority complex (based on race) then I have no problem with anyone's sentiment and reason for choice.  Culture and habits are a very big part of a sentiment of belonging and each individual isn't harming anything by making a choice.

There is political nationality and then there is cultural nationality....  If with the two you have the privilege to choose in something as trivial as football, then there isn't a problem.  People CAN actually feel they belong to two places for those affected by a particular situation and in some cases this is what's at stake here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SirBalon said:

Very true, but you can't deny and it's wrong to try and eradicate sentiment based on either of the two points.  As long as the sentiments aren't based on any superiority complex (based on race) then I have no problem with anyone's sentiment and reason for choice.  Culture and habits are a very big part of a sentiment of belonging and each individual isn't harming anything by making a choice.

There is political nationality and then there is cultural nationality....  If with the two you have the privilege to choose in something as trivial as football, then there isn't a problem.  People CAN actually feel they belong to two places for those affected by a particular situation and in some cases this is what's at stake here.

It's not where you're from its where you're at, as Ian Brown used to say. You cannot be a part of somewhere and not actually be a part of it at the same time. That is imagination.

We've got players playing for countries they've only ever been on holiday to simply because they can get a passport for that place. Well I've been on holiday to Cyprus, why can't I play for them if I can convince my imagination to "feel" Cypriot? This is where the only answer as to why not comes back to borderline racialist political ideology and not freedom of choice. You can play for X country because 25% of your genetics are shared with someone who lived there once LOL.

It is also makes a mockery of international football for someone whose football upbringing was done in the schooling and grass roots level of one country and then they go and play for someone else that their imagination prefers. Or in many cases, the country of the two that they are actually good enough to play for.

Scotland hire someone to check the ancestry of English born and bred players. Fuck me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

It's not where you're from its where you're at, as Ian Brown used to say. You cannot be a part of somewhere and not actually be a part of it at the same time. That is imagination.

We've got players playing for countries they've only ever been on holiday to simply because they can get a passport for that place. Well I've been on holiday to Cyprus, why can't I play for them if I can convince my imagination to "feel" Cypriot? This is where the only answer as to why not comes back to borderline racialist political ideology and not freedom of choice. You can play for X country because 25% of your genetics are shared with someone who lived there once LOL.

It is also makes a mockery of international football for someone whose football upbringing was done in the schooling and grass roots level of one country and then they go and play for someone else that their imagination prefers. Or in many cases, the country of the two that they are actually good enough to play for.

Scotland hire someone to check the ancestry of English born and bred players. Fuck me.

Racialism isn't an issue at all, racism is!  Let's not politicise something where many people aren't afflicted with a superiority complex where this issue is concerned.  Politicising everything and being hardline extreme left-wing is as repulsive and aggressive these days as the right-wing extreme equivalent...  It's the old "Horseshoe" problem here with modern society.

Your example of going on holiday somewhere and making light of feeling culturally connected is ridiculous because my example contained the fact you've been brought up in a household with parents from that country, parents who's parents, grandparents etc... etc... were from that other place.  Infact a first generation person born outside of their descendants cultural home tends to be as culturally connected to their parents' country as their descendants.  You can't know about this or understand the sentiment because you have no connection to it.

Another thing that's very wrong in today's very much politicised extreme-left rhetoric is the attempt to indoctrinate and cleanse every natural human instinct even when it doesn't contain an ounce of negativity.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with choice based on fact!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don´t think jus soli should the exclusive rule to define if a player is eligible or not to play for a national team. It would really hurt competitiveness and many good players would be prevented from playing in international competitions. For example, would Algeria be as strong without french-born players?

What could happen is that when a footballer signs his professional contract, he should inform FIFA which national team he wants to defend. The real problem now is that many swtich sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VanPaddy said:

I agree it should be down to the individual but based on their parents and should be a limit to how far you can go back otherwise you have a problem like with the Republic of Ireland's teams in the 80s and 90's you were eligible to play for them if your great grandad had a pint of Guinness in any Irish county. 

I think FIFA does not need to rule on that matter. If the laws of the country grant the player right to citizenship then he should be eligible to defend that national team. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choice is one of the most wonderful things in life. Let’s not radicalise ourselves to supress choice!

Of course, once the choice is made in such a case as football at international level, then that’s it. National and international laws already provide us with enough on the rules subject to allow for choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Advertisement