Can Someone Tell Me Why There Sre So...
News1 min ago
How English Should You Be To Play For England At Football?
-"According to Fifa statutes a player is eligible to play for a country if he has "lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 in the territory of the relevant association"".
http://
I did not know this.
I am aware of another thread from the News on this
http://
And in that, Mushroom asserts that the statute as mentioned above is wrong - a player would need 5 years education as well - Can anyone confirm which interpretation is correct?
For myself, I had always thought you had to have been born in England to play for them. Just shows what I know ;)
http://
I did not know this.
I am aware of another thread from the News on this
http://
And in that, Mushroom asserts that the statute as mentioned above is wrong - a player would need 5 years education as well - Can anyone confirm which interpretation is correct?
For myself, I had always thought you had to have been born in England to play for them. Just shows what I know ;)
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I am aware that different sports have different eligibility criteria. There was a kind of indecent haste and various press campaigns I believe over granting Budd UK nationality, and people have often commented the the modern England cricket team is essentially an alternative South African squad.
I was unaware until now that the FIFA codes only appear to stipulate 5 years continuous residency post 18, although Mushrooms comments on the other thread seem to point to the need for 5 years of continuous education in that country too.
I was unaware until now that the FIFA codes only appear to stipulate 5 years continuous residency post 18, although Mushrooms comments on the other thread seem to point to the need for 5 years of continuous education in that country too.
Aussies have a state-of-origin football series but that's the nearest thing I can think of to saying "you can only do X if you were born here" (except the US presidency). And rightly so. If people live here, vote here, pay their taxes here, why shouldn't they play football for here?
I think something like 5 years' residence is common to most sports as a requirement and I think it's about right.
I think something like 5 years' residence is common to most sports as a requirement and I think it's about right.
I was vaguely aware of some sort of rule like this and I have to say I don't approve of it, certainly where international football is concerned.
As i was saying on the other thread, the FIFA rule is open to exploitation by National Associations of clubs who sign foreign players (as for example Man Utd did in the case of Adnan Januzay, the latest player to cause this debate to be raised again - although I'm not of course criticising Man Utd here)
In my view, the residency rule should NOT apply if the player has moved to that country specifically to play football.
Apart from that, I don't think you should have to have been born in a country to play for them. Where someone has lived in the country from an early age, pre-dating any football, and become a citizen or a naturalised citizen of the country, then that should be OK.
There are also cases - as with Adnan Janusaj, where the preferred country (qualified for by parentage) is not allowed to particpate in international football
In which case there might be mitigating circumstances. But I still say that the rule is open to exploitation - and I've not heard anyone else make that point.
The other question of course is should individual countries impse their own tighter restrictions, regardless of FIFA'a current comparatively lax rules.
In N Ireland we have a specific problem in that the Football Association of the Republic has been "poaching" players who've come through the Northern association's superior youth set-up. So there's a whole other can of worms.
As i was saying on the other thread, the FIFA rule is open to exploitation by National Associations of clubs who sign foreign players (as for example Man Utd did in the case of Adnan Januzay, the latest player to cause this debate to be raised again - although I'm not of course criticising Man Utd here)
In my view, the residency rule should NOT apply if the player has moved to that country specifically to play football.
Apart from that, I don't think you should have to have been born in a country to play for them. Where someone has lived in the country from an early age, pre-dating any football, and become a citizen or a naturalised citizen of the country, then that should be OK.
There are also cases - as with Adnan Janusaj, where the preferred country (qualified for by parentage) is not allowed to particpate in international football
In which case there might be mitigating circumstances. But I still say that the rule is open to exploitation - and I've not heard anyone else make that point.
The other question of course is should individual countries impse their own tighter restrictions, regardless of FIFA'a current comparatively lax rules.
In N Ireland we have a specific problem in that the Football Association of the Republic has been "poaching" players who've come through the Northern association's superior youth set-up. So there's a whole other can of worms.
Some interesting responses. I was taken by surprise by how lax FIFAs rules appear to be. I had understood that eligibility for the national team was having been born here and thought no more about it ;)
I quite like Ichkeria's solution- that someone who has become a naturalised citizen can be eligible.
Mind you, I can see the point JNO is making too. But I suppose if the nature of the competition is to pit nation states against each other, I think more stringent rules should apply. Otherwise these International Competitions could essentially become a competition between the different national football leagues :)
I quite like Ichkeria's solution- that someone who has become a naturalised citizen can be eligible.
Mind you, I can see the point JNO is making too. But I suppose if the nature of the competition is to pit nation states against each other, I think more stringent rules should apply. Otherwise these International Competitions could essentially become a competition between the different national football leagues :)
-- answer removed --
Perhaps we should adopt the international law of domicil, still used in some cases with an international element. That says that you have a 'domicil of origin' which is the domicil of whatever country your father was domiciled in. This can be changed to your 'domicil of choice', which is of the country of which you display a permanent and settled intention to live in and belong to , meaning, in effect, that you intended to die there. That is more than would be displayed by someone who decided to, and did, play football in a country for five years, whether they were educated there in that time or not.
Can't think that the education rule, if it exists, is of universal application. It would have no use for someone who was over the school leaving age when they started. Suppose they were 18? Or, recently, 16 ?
Can't think that the education rule, if it exists, is of universal application. It would have no use for someone who was over the school leaving age when they started. Suppose they were 18? Or, recently, 16 ?
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
R.i.p. Duane Thanks For The Music
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Law12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.